Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sctmom

Court rules Pledge of Allegiance 'unconstitutional'

Recommended Posts

Zorn, it sounds to me like you don't really believe in our system of government at all. We all have criticisms of the government, sometimes serious criticisms, but I think the vast majority do believe in the basic legitimacy of our government. You don't seem to. That's your right, and one of the reasons this is a great country is that you can disbelieve in our system of government without having government agents knocking down your door and dragging you off. (Well, not usually, anyway.)

 

However, since this is a Scouting board and all, I have to wonder, is that what you teach your Scouts when you are discussing citizenship and Duty to Country? That the whole system is corrupt and the pronouncements of the Supreme Court do not represent valid law because the justices are corrupt and the elected president is just the "appointer of the moment"?

 

That would make an interesting Scoutmaster's Minute, I'll tell you that. It would be even more interesting when the boys get home and tell their parents what they learned at Scouts tonight...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zorn Packte said with respect to Justice Black, Everson v. Board of Education 1947,

 

"That is only one man's opinion. The Supreme Court is comprise of men who are selected, not for their intelligence, but for their record of ruling in a manner that pleases the appointer of the moment. The whole system is flawed and like most government organizations, corrupt."

 

Actually, Justice Black wrote for the majority. Therefore, it is not "one man's opinion" as you say but the decision of the court. I think your assessment of how justices are chosen by a president is not only overly cynical, but hopelessly simplistic. Before you dismiss everything this man said as corrupt because you don't agree with the quote given, you should probably read the opinion. Understand what he said in the context of the case and all of the various arguments. I suspect you have not done that. You may be embarrassed to find you agree with the decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, what a tangled web we weave....

 

Merlyn said earlier, "Of course, I think you're a good example of how the BSA encourages bigotry against atheists, just as Restricted clubs encouraged bigotry against Jews years ago. Good work."

 

Slontwovvy, with no small amount of sarcasm..."Yep, that's the first thing I learned in all levels of BSA training--Gotta be bigoted against the atheists."

 

I think you're looking for connections where there are none.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zorn Packte,

 

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems like you're coming across as some kind of either white supremacist, or at way least anti-black.

 

If it's the first, I'd like to figure out a way to symbolically turn my back on you and walk out of the room.

 

And if it's the second, I wonder if you're redeemable...? I'd make an effort to swerve you from the dark side, and if that was not to be, THEN I'd turn my back on you. Symbolically.

 

Of course if it's neither, I extend my apologies and recommend to you that you review what you say before it's posted, just in case it doesn't really come across the way you want it too.

 

Can you clarify for me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More generally.

 

I accept evolution as a thery that has the weight of scientific fact - "honk if you understand punctuated equilibrium". I'm sure there are gaps in our understanding, just as I am sure that we and the apes share a special relationship (look at the DNA similarities) just as I am sure that God exists.

 

One does NOT exclude the other, except for literalists, who have enough contradictory stuff to deal with as it is :-)

 

God gave us science so that we might better appreciate His Handiwork. When I hear or read folks who run down science as a tool of Lucifer, even as they drive cars, use electricity and post to websites, I'm amazed about how self-blinding we humans can be.

 

 

Now - all that said, I gotta say that the teaching of evolution before high-school scares me. it's not the place of the school system to shake whatever foundations of faith may be set down by a child's family. (I use the high school cut-off because I think by then faith is built and able to deal with challenges OR be legitimately refined. I could be wrong about the timing.)

 

WE CANNOT AS A SOCIETY lament the lack of family values if we even in part attack what some families see as an integral part of those values.

 

SO. Get evolution out of grade and middle school. And even there, we can still talk about adaptations, eco-systems, speciation, all stuff that looks at the world in recent time, yet can be used eventually as stepping stones to evolution if that is the way a particular teen-ager's mind will turn.

 

Now, even as I say THIS in defense of some of the faithful, I also recognize atheists' rights as well, and just as I think that evolution too early is scary, so do I think that a single enforced religion, too blatantly, is scary, too. Manger scenes in City Hall on the public dime just ain't right.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

slontwovvy wrote:

Merlyn said earlier, "Of course, I think you're a good example of how the BSA encourages bigotry against atheists, just as Restricted clubs encouraged bigotry against Jews years ago. Good work."

 

Slontwovvy, with no small amount of sarcasm..."Yep, that's the first thing I learned in all levels of BSA training--Gotta be bigoted against the atheists."

 

I think you're looking for connections where there are none.

 

I think the analogy is apt; some members of Restricted clubs didn't give a second thought to belonging to a club that explicitly excluded Jews. Would you, or anyone here belong to such a club today? Yet you belong to a club that explicitly excludes atheists, and when Zorn Packte suggested that atheists not have freedom of speech, nobody criticized him for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"When the court has addressed this issue, they found that teaching creationism is not teaching science, but just teaching religion masquerading as science. They also found that the government's interest in teaching *real* science to students is a compelling state interest that is not being done to purposely ridicule or subvert students' religious views, which makes it quite legal for public schools to teach subjects that may, incidentally, contradict various religious teachings."

 

Amazing how you can write that and find nothing wrong with it but continue to find objection to the word God in the pledge. The word God is not added to ridicule your nonbelief; it's just that there is a compelling state interest to continue to encourage it's usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"When the court has addressed this issue, they found that teaching creationism is not teaching science, but just teaching religion masquerading as science. They also found that the government's interest in teaching *real* science to students is a compelling state interest that is not being done to purposely ridicule or subvert students' religious views, which makes it quite legal for public schools to teach subjects that may, incidentally, contradict various religious teachings."

 

Amazing how you can write that and find nothing wrong with it but continue to find objection to the word God in the pledge. The word God is not added to ridicule your nonbelief; it's just that there is a compelling state interest to continue to encourage it's usage.

 

But the word god was added to encourage theism (see Eisenhower's remarks when he signed the legislation), which is NOT a compelling state interest, and is in fact something that the state is prohibited from doing. The pledge functioned just fine before 1954 when god was added, and it'll still function just fine after it's removed.

 

Modern biology, on the other hand, is based on evolution; you can't teach modern biology without it, just as you can't teach how planets move without involving gravitational theory. If the idea of planets moving by themselves contradicts your religious view that angels push them around, that's not sufficient reason to stop teaching orbital mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think your assessment of how justices are chosen by a president is not only overly cynical, but hopelessly simplistic."

 

I know how justices and judges are picked. Most, if not all political systems in this country are corrupt. Appointed judged are picked because the pickers like the way they do or will rule.

 

Congress is hideously corrupt, they make rules that apply to everyone but them. They sell their votes, they barter their honor to stay in office.

 

Local governments are constantly looking for ways to suck money out of the Federal government to promote empire building.

 

I was all a good idea 225 years ago but it has gone awry. The government is no longer accessible to the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the analogy is apt; some members of Restricted clubs didn't give a second thought to belonging to a club that explicitly excluded Jews

 

What's wrong with restricted clubs? The Jews have always been able to form their own clubs and make them better. In most cities that I've been to there are exclusive black clubs, whites need not apply, but I've never seen any lawsuites over those.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know how justices and judges are picked. Most, if not all political systems in this country are corrupt. Appointed judged are picked because the pickers like the way they do or will rule.

Congress is hideously corrupt, they make rules that apply to everyone but them. They sell their votes, they barter their honor to stay in office.

 

Local governments are constantly looking for ways to suck money out of the Federal government to promote empire building.

 

I was all a good idea 225 years ago but it has gone awry. The government is no longer accessible to the people.

 

So why do you want the government to promote religion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the word god was added to encourage theism (see Eisenhower's remarks when he signed the legislation), which is NOT a compelling state interest, and is in fact something that the state is prohibited from doing.

 

NO, that's simply not true. The state can promote the belief in the existence of God. What they can't do is tell us which god to believe in, and/or require us to worship God in a particular way. Furthermore, based on the morality of our generation, I would say the state does have a compelling interest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems like you're coming across as some kind of either white supremacist, or at way least anti-black.

 

If it's the first, I'd like to figure out a way to symbolically turn my back on you and walk out of the room.

 

Go ahead, turn around and walk away. That's a classic response.

 

Proclaiming, "Black is Beautiful" is okay but saying, "I'm proud to be white" is racist.

 

Blacks wears shirts that say, "You wouldn't understand, it's a black thing." If a white wears a similar shirt, it's racist.

 

Black commedians make fun of whites, Jews and Orientals on a regular basis but if a white Gentile commedian makes fun of blacks or Jews, its racist.

 

The list is nearly endless.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the word god was added to encourage theism (see Eisenhower's remarks when he signed the legislation), which is NOT a compelling state interest, and is in fact something that the state is prohibited from doing.

 

NO, that's simply not true. The state can promote the belief in the existence of God. What they can't do is tell us which god to believe in, and/or require us to worship God in a particular way. Furthermore, based on the morality of our generation, I would say the state does have a compelling interest.

 

Only because you're making the unnecessary and unstated assumption that belief in gods has something to do with morality. There's no reason to assume this.

 

And, of course, I disagree with your blanket assertion that the government has the power to promote a belief in god; of course, if it does, it equally has the power to *discourage* a belief in god, and if the powers-that-be decide that god belief is something to be discouraged, you won't have a leg to stand on. After all, official government statements saying that "gods are myths" aren't telling you what religion to follow, either. Constitutional in your view, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...