Under God

Quote from stu:
More...

Then I'll ask again, why , according to you, are these words ... "We hold these truths to be self evident......"
subject to this statement of yours ...."the concepts of freedom of thought as a right are clearly express in the writings of the Framers.".....

Look to the writings in the scholastic piece from Feldman, published in Law Review for some clues to what the Framers were thinking prior to when the Establishment Clause was made law.

but these words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.". are NOT subject to this statement of yours ...."the concepts of freedom of thought as a right are clearly express in the writings of the Framers."

What we have to understand the thinking of the Framers, and their intent can be found in their writings around the time of the of the Establishment Clause being written. Feldman's piece explains this.

So? Your point being what exactly?

My point is that the pledge is not illegal, nor unconstitutional as determined by lawmakers, and law arbiters of the highest level.

So you can't interpret the meaning of theses words , "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" because you say, "we would have to return to those days, the exact use of language of those days, the political climate of those days, have conversations with the framers to ask questions an get clarification of ideas and points etc. in order to even begin to try and replicate what the original words truly meant...

but you are able to interpret hundreds and thousands of words by Feldman, trying to argue 10 words mean something else than what they say.

I am able to, with the help of Feldman to get historical context, and read other words and ideas of the Framers, see the arguments used at that time, their concerns, etc. We get a peek in to the past by reading history. The Framers were religious men, clearly evidenced in their writings, who had concerns that religion be defended by the Constitution so as not to have the government abuse it. They felt religion needed protection from the government, not that the people needed protection from religion.

I am able to, with the help of the Elk Grove ruling to see the tests set forth by the high court in determining what is religion, what is coercion by the government as relates to establishment of religion, and I am able to talk to the common man to get his understanding of what religion is.

I am able hear what religious leaders and founders have said religion is, and what constitutes religious practice.

What I get from you is God=Religion and your interpretation of 10 words.

Then I'll ask again, So what? I was not aware the argument was based upon whether the Supreme Court has the right or not to make law. It is more a question of whether the Court's current decision is unsafe or unsound.

So the pledge is Constitutional until the high court says it is not, or until an amendment changes the law. The law stands for now as just and Constitutional until further notice.

You do recognize the high court as the final arbiter, as laid out in the Constitution to be the final arbiter?



By the way the common usage for 'on the wrong side of the law' is lawbreaker. Are you suggesting I and others of like mind are law breakers for holding an opposite opinion to your own?

Not at all. You are on the wrong side of the high court's opinion, and as such the pledge stands. Were you to try and forcibly stop the voluntarily repetition of the pledge, then you would be on the wrong side of the enforcement of law.

So when The Abolitionists of slavery rejected the court rulings they rejected "the Constitution in a sense" ? It appears you prefer to try and attempt discredit by demonizing rather than argue what these words mean, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. If they don't mean exactly what they say then what do they mean. I am still waiting.

The Abolitionists were able to show damages to slaves. Slavery was not an option for slaves. Recitation of the pledge is.

You have yet to show damages to anyone who doesn't have to say the pledge.

I don't see any demolition . I simply see you agreeing with Elk Grove. I see no reason why you should.

You disagree with the court, your right to do so. I happen to agree, equally my right.

How can you read Elk so well, yet miss read the very few words I wrote....."I saw no reasons for them to hold valid argument against the 10 clear words of obvious meaning, in the First Amendment, already referred to."

So you so saw no valid reason, so one was not there? The court has to conform to your idea of what is valid? Make an argument before them, see what happens. You are not the recognized authority nor final arbiter on validity of law, the high court is.

Then what business would Congress have had for altering it under law? Such things are unconstitutional. It says so in the First Amendment.

The court does not agree with your conclusion, nor do I. The pledge is not mandatory, it is optional. A fact you don't seem to want to deal with.

You have provided (by your own reasoning) someone else’s opinion. That opinion does not show how these words.. "under God".. entered under law , are not unconstitutional.. when these words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." ...show them to be so.

I am deferring to those with expertise in legal and historical matters. Why wouldn't I defer to an expert over your opinions?

I have ,you refuse to acknowledge it. I think the problem is, it's very simple. These words are very clear..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

The statement "The words are very clear" has little legal meaning. Try making a legal argument on that basis.

Your constant repetition reminds me of those who quote the Bible.

You have to make an argument, not just claim your understanding of the words is the correct understanding.

God=Religion is laughable, as that is the foundation of your argument.

Seriously, write a legal brief and see how far you get on the basis of your "argument"....

Congress entered a law respecting an establishment of religion. I have shown why inserting the words "under God" makes that so.

Statement only. No argument, no foundation, just a statement.

The law is unconstitutional according to those 10 words in the First Amendment. Neither you or Feldman or the Elk Grove have demonstrated sound or safe reason why it was not.

So you are the arbiter of sound and safe reason? Do you have a God complex, or think yourself superior to the high court judges on legal matters?

Incontrovertible reason at least as incontrovertible as the 10 words themselves would do.

The court does not agree. You lose.

I still await confirmation that you can distinguish between those two sets of words in my earlier post.

I await more than statements that God=religion.
 
Look to the writings in the scholastic piece from Feldman, published in Law Review for some clues to what the Framers were thinking prior to when the Establishment Clause was made law.
What we have to understand the thinking of the Framers, and their intent can be found in their writings around the time of the of the Establishment Clause being written. Feldman's piece explains this.

Is that your way of saying yes, no, or you don't know?

Can you tell me what their intent was other than an intention that ..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". seeing that according to you "their intent can be found in their writings"

Feldman doesn't achieve it. Can you? Apparently not. Scurrying behind the link isn't enough to make your argument stand.


My point is that the pledge is not illegal, nor unconstitutional as determined by lawmakers, and law arbiters of the highest level.

My point is, it is unconstitutional according to the Constitution. The law arbiters of the highest level, as you call them, may indeed rule it unconstitutional. That wouldn't be illegal either.

I am able to, with the help of Feldman to get historical context, and read other words and ideas of the Framers, see the arguments used at that time, their concerns, etc. We get a peek in to the past by reading history. The Framers were religious men, clearly evidenced in their writings, who had concerns that religion be defended by the Constitution so as not to have the government abuse it. They felt religion needed protection from the government, not that the people needed protection from religion.
I am able to, with the help of the Elk Grove ruling to see the tests set forth by the high court in determining what is religion, what is coercion by the government as relates to establishment of religion, and I am able to talk to the common man to get his understanding of what religion is.
I am able hear what religious leaders and founders have said religion is, and what constitutes religious practice.

I suppose then you must find it easier to understand those things explained in thousands of words when you agree with the conclusion beforehand. However, you cannot understand apparently, only ten words in the First Amendment.

What I get from you is God=Religion and your interpretation of 10 words.

Then explain why I might be incorrect. Yourself, Elk Grove / Feldman , have not done so. All I get from you is contradiction. All I get from Elk Grove/Feldman are thousands of words non of which show explanation of why those ten words mean anything other than what they say.

You can apparently interpret thousands of Elk Grove / Feldman words to give you context but you can't interpret the ten contained in the First without all this wriggling and squirming around.

So the pledge is Constitutional until the high court says it is not, or until an amendment changes the law. The law stands for now as just and Constitutional until further notice.

The Constitution is what is Constitutional. The Courts do not make the Constitution constitutional. The Constitution is de facto constitutional. The Court decide between what some people say the Constitution means, and what others say it means. The Court changes its mind.

The law may well be just (it is not always) and constitutional, that was not being discussed until now. It is a separate and distinct matter.

You do recognize the high court as the final arbiter, as laid out in the Constitution to be the final arbiter?

Has nothing to do with what we were talking about. There was no discussion until now, as to whether the Court was constitutional. There was no discussion on what the Constitution declares as final arbiter until now. Those are separate and distinct matters.

Not at all. You are on the wrong side of the high court's opinion, and as such the pledge stands. Were you to try and forcibly stop the voluntarily repetition of the pledge, then you would be on the wrong side of the enforcement of law.

Wrong side of the Court's opinion.? I don't see it that way. I would say I disagree with the Court's opinion. That's my prerogative, as it is yours to agree with the Court's opinion. But that does not put you on the right side of the law anymore than it puts me on the wrong side. Your use of the word wrong gives room for mis-interpretation...something which those ten words of the wise and clear speaking writers of the Constitution do not.

The Abolitionists were able to show damages to slaves. Slavery was not an option for slaves. Recitation of the pledge is.
You have yet to show damages to anyone who doesn't have to say the pledge.

Resultant damage is not a pre-requisite for unconstitutional interference in a public pledge. By the same token it does not damage people to provide sparate wash rooms for white and non whites. Because that does not show damage as you put it, are you saying such a practice would therefore be constitutional?


You disagree with the court, your right to do so. I happen to agree, equally my right.

So?

So you so saw no valid reason, so one was not there? The court has to conform to your idea of what is valid? Make an argument before them, see what happens. You are not the recognized authority nor final arbiter on validity of law, the high court is.

Quite possibly no valid reason was there, so show me one. What is your problem with this? You have just said, a few words ago, "You disagree with the court, your right to do so."

The court does not agree with your conclusion, nor do I. The pledge is not mandatory, it is optional. A fact you don't seem to want to deal with.

Then why was it messed with ? How does a patriotic public Pledge become a divisive public prayer? Put the word God in it and declare those who do not agree outside the American Community at large. I dealt with it way back. You just don't seem interested in the answer I gave.

I am deferring to those with expertise in legal and historical matters. Why wouldn't I defer to an expert over your opinions?
erm.. because you haven't seen the light yet ?
You may well defer once too often and find your rights under the Constitution have been eroded so much, deference toward a powerful few is all you have left.

The statement "The words are very clear" has little legal meaning. Try making a legal argument on that basis.

LOL LOL LOL. That is a classic even for you Optional 777.

Your constant repetition reminds me of those who quote the Bible.
You have to make an argument, not just claim your understanding of the words is the correct understanding.
God=Religion is laughable, as that is the foundation of your argument.

I have made an argument. You just don't want to listen to it or deal with it. The Constitution is a good foundation for arguing the words and meanings within it should not be overun by Congress or other law makers. You say God=Religion is laughable whilst your idea that it isn't remains farcical.

Seriously, write a legal brief and see how far you get on the basis of your "argument"....

LOL

Statement only. No argument, no foundation, just a statement

Then I suggest you re-read this thread with a little more of what ever it was that enabled you to achieve your insight into Elk Grove/Feldman's 'thousands of words link'. My arguments and foundation are there and straightforward enough for anyone to read.

So you are the arbiter of sound and safe reason? Do you have a God complex, or think yourself superior to the high court judges on legal matters?

No. do you?

The court does not agree. You lose.

So do you, when living under unconstitutional law.

I await more than statements that God=religion.

Awaiting something which you already have seems to me, rather self-defeating .
 
Stu, I think we are done here.

You have your opinion, which the court and I don't agree with.

Any new ground to cover?

Any supporting evidence?

Any more brilliant ideas like "The Constitution is what is Constitutional."

Or have you rested your case on God=religion and 10 simple words, your interpretation of them, your belief of the intent of the Framers in the use of them, and what you think or should not have happened and what should happen now?

Quote from stu:

Look to the writings in the scholastic piece from Feldman, published in Law Review for some clues to what the Framers were thinking prior to when the Establishment Clause was made law.
What we have to understand the thinking of the Framers, and their intent can be found in their writings around the time of the of the Establishment Clause being written. Feldman's piece explains this.

Is that your way of saying yes, no, or you don't know?

Can you tell me what their intent was other than an intention that ..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". seeing that according to you "their intent can be found in their writings"

Feldman doesn't achieve it. Can you? Apparently not. Scurrying behind the link isn't enough to make your argument stand.


My point is that the pledge is not illegal, nor unconstitutional as determined by lawmakers, and law arbiters of the highest level.

My point is, it is unconstitutional according to the Constitution. The law arbiters of the highest level, as you call them, may indeed rule it unconstitutional. That wouldn't be illegal either.

I am able to, with the help of Feldman to get historical context, and read other words and ideas of the Framers, see the arguments used at that time, their concerns, etc. We get a peek in to the past by reading history. The Framers were religious men, clearly evidenced in their writings, who had concerns that religion be defended by the Constitution so as not to have the government abuse it. They felt religion needed protection from the government, not that the people needed protection from religion.
I am able to, with the help of the Elk Grove ruling to see the tests set forth by the high court in determining what is religion, what is coercion by the government as relates to establishment of religion, and I am able to talk to the common man to get his understanding of what religion is.
I am able hear what religious leaders and founders have said religion is, and what constitutes religious practice.

I suppose then you must find it easier to understand those things explained in thousands of words when you agree with the conclusion beforehand. However, you cannot understand apparently, only ten words in the First Amendment.

What I get from you is God=Religion and your interpretation of 10 words.

Then explain why I might be incorrect. Yourself, Elk Grove / Feldman , have not done so. All I get from you is contradiction. All I get from Elk Grove/Feldman are thousands of words non of which show explanation of why those ten words mean anything other than what they say.

You can apparently interpret thousands of Elk Grove / Feldman words to give you context but you can't interpret the ten contained in the First without all this wriggling and squirming around.

So the pledge is Constitutional until the high court says it is not, or until an amendment changes the law. The law stands for now as just and Constitutional until further notice.

The Constitution is what is Constitutional. The Courts do not make the Constitution constitutional. The Constitution is de facto constitutional. The Court decide between what some people say the Constitution means, and what others say it means. The Court changes its mind.

The law may well be just (it is not always) and constitutional, that was not being discussed until now. It is a separate and distinct matter.

You do recognize the high court as the final arbiter, as laid out in the Constitution to be the final arbiter?

Has nothing to do with what we were talking about. There was no discussion until now, as to whether the Court was constitutional. There was no discussion on what the Constitution declares as final arbiter until now. Those are separate and distinct matters.

Not at all. You are on the wrong side of the high court's opinion, and as such the pledge stands. Were you to try and forcibly stop the voluntarily repetition of the pledge, then you would be on the wrong side of the enforcement of law.

Wrong side of the Court's opinion.? I don't see it that way. I would say I disagree with the Court's opinion. That's my prerogative, as it is yours to agree with the Court's opinion. But that does not put you on the right side of the law anymore than it puts me on the wrong side. Your use of the word wrong gives room for mis-interpretation...something which those ten words of the wise and clear speaking writers of the Constitution do not.

The Abolitionists were able to show damages to slaves. Slavery was not an option for slaves. Recitation of the pledge is.
You have yet to show damages to anyone who doesn't have to say the pledge.

Resultant damage is not a pre-requisite for unconstitutional interference in a public pledge. By the same token it does not damage people to provide sparate wash rooms for white and non whites. Because that does not show damage as you put it, are you saying such a practice would therefore be constitutional?


You disagree with the court, your right to do so. I happen to agree, equally my right.

So?

So you so saw no valid reason, so one was not there? The court has to conform to your idea of what is valid? Make an argument before them, see what happens. You are not the recognized authority nor final arbiter on validity of law, the high court is.

Quite possibly no valid reason was there, so show me one. What is your problem with this? You have just said, a few words ago, "You disagree with the court, your right to do so."

The court does not agree with your conclusion, nor do I. The pledge is not mandatory, it is optional. A fact you don't seem to want to deal with.

Then why was it messed with ? How does a patriotic public Pledge become a divisive public prayer? Put the word God in it and declare those who do not agree outside the American Community at large. I dealt with it way back. You just don't seem interested in the answer I gave.

I am deferring to those with expertise in legal and historical matters. Why wouldn't I defer to an expert over your opinions?
erm.. because you haven't seen the light yet ?
You may well defer once too often and find your rights under the Constitution have been eroded so much, deference toward a powerful few is all you have left.

The statement "The words are very clear" has little legal meaning. Try making a legal argument on that basis.

LOL LOL LOL. That is a classic even for you Optional 777.

Your constant repetition reminds me of those who quote the Bible.
You have to make an argument, not just claim your understanding of the words is the correct understanding.
God=Religion is laughable, as that is the foundation of your argument.

I have made an argument. You just don't want to listen to it or deal with it. The Constitution is a good foundation for arguing the words and meanings within it should not be overun by Congress or other law makers. You say God=Religion is laughable whilst your idea that it isn't remains farcical.

Seriously, write a legal brief and see how far you get on the basis of your "argument"....

LOL

Statement only. No argument, no foundation, just a statement

Then I suggest you re-read this thread with a little more of what ever it was that enabled you to achieve your insight into Elk Grove/Feldman's 'thousands of words link'. My arguments and foundation are there and straightforward enough for anyone to read.

So you are the arbiter of sound and safe reason? Do you have a God complex, or think yourself superior to the high court judges on legal matters?

No. do you?

The court does not agree. You lose.

So do you, when living under unconstitutional law.

I await more than statements that God=religion.

Awaiting something which you already have seems to me, rather self-defeating .
More...
 
We are probably done.

You have your opinion which you cannot articulate other than by saying the court agrees with you, irrespective of the fact whether or not the Court might be right or wrong, and irrespective of the fact that it was not essential to the argument anyway.

But nevertheless, you introduced it , so when the court finds itself wrong and changes its view, you will presumably not agree with the Court, but you won't be able to give any reason why, other than to offer up a treatise containing endless jiggling as to why words don't mean what they say. Because according to you if you did, you would be on the wrong side of the law. And that is an argument?!

I understand. You can't handle the powerful simplicity of a synonym and the clear and precise meaning of 10 words, but then reason has not been your strong point, that is evident for all to see.
 
I gave quite a lot of my own opinions before introduction of Feldman and the words and ideas of the high court on the matter, which I used as supporting opinion and evidence in my case.

You have given us only unproven statements and your opinion and selective use of dictionaries.

Which, unfortunately for the atheists, is not sufficient to overturn an existing law on a claim of unconstitutionality.

Your argument rests on the foundation of one simple statement.

God=religion.

For the law to be overturn, it must be shown that the law is in fact unconstitutional, not on the basis of your opinion only, nor your ideas only, but on the basis of case law, the opinions of the high court and the opinions of the majority of the people, common and uncommon alike.

You have failed to prove your claim of God=religion. You have failed to show how rights granted by the constitution have been violated by a voluntary practice. So, until you can provide some evidence to override the definitions used by the court, the common man, and those who are founders of religion or those leaders who currently lead established religions in this country you will just be stuck with an impotent opinion.

Until the day comes that the court rules otherwise, I agree with their current opinion. If they do at some point rule otherwise, I will evaluate their reasons. However, if that happens, I predict you will see a constitutional amendment passed to support the pledge, and that will be the worst thing that could ever happen. Once such an amendment is passed, there really will be a problem for the atheists and their agenda for the way America should be.

As always, you are free to claim any victory, or any opinion you like, just as children are free to participate or not participate in the Constitutional practice of saying the pledge.

It is a free country for Americans citizens, afforded they by our constitution.

Oh, are you an American, right?

Another simple question asked of stu not answered.

Quote from stu:

We are probably done.

You have your opinion which you cannot articulate other than by saying the court agrees with you, irrespective of the fact whether or not the Court might be right or wrong, and irrespective of the fact that it was not essential to the argument anyway.

But nevertheless, you introduced it , so when the court finds itself wrong and changes its view, you will presumably not agree with the Court, but you won't be able to give any reason why, other than to offer up a treatise containing endless jiggling as to why words don't mean what they say. Because according to you if you did, you would be on the wrong side of the law. And that is an argument?!

I understand. You can't handle the powerful simplicity of a synonym and the clear and precise meaning of 10 words, but then reason has not been your strong point, that is evident for all to see.
More...
 
Quote from stu:

"We hold these truths to be self evident......"
If you took the time to read the historical scholastic article by Feldman published in Law Review ...
[snip]

Yes, I did provide all three. The work by Feldman and the Elk Grove case being of scholastic and Law Review standards.

[snip]

I still await confirmation that you can distinguish between those two sets of words in my earlier post.
More...

About distinguishing words, I think you meant "scholarly" instead of "scholastic"? If in doubt, PM rgelite, I'm sure he will oblige by copying you a few pages out of his Oxford Dictionary.

Always ready to help out,

nononsense
 
Rge is good with the dictionary, but I think he lacks a bit when it comes to the meaning of the words as the comman man and law would understand them.

Context is the real definer of words....but I agree, scholarly would have been a better choice of words.

Quote from nononsense:

About distinguishing words, I think you meant "scholarly" instead of "scholastic"? If in doubt, PM rgelite, I'm sure he will oblige by copying you a few pages out of the Oxford Dictionary.

Always ready to help out,

nononsense
More...
 
Nonsense:
>About distinguishing words, I think you meant
>"scholarly" instead of "scholastic"? If in
>doubt, PM rgelite, I'm sure he will oblige by copying
>you a few pages out of his Oxford Dictionary.

Your ability to attribute quotes to the wrong person is outstanding. Those words were written by ART and not stu.

>Always ready to help out,

With help like that....

JB
 
Quote from Turok:

Nonsense:
>About distinguishing words, I think you meant
>"scholarly" instead of "scholastic"? If in
>doubt, PM rgelite, I'm sure he will oblige by copying
>you a few pages out of his Oxford Dictionary.

Your ability to attribute quotes to the wrong person is outstanding. Those words were written by ART and not stu.

>Always ready to help out,

With help like that....

JB
More...

Sorry stu,

Turok, thanks for helping. My sole intention was to polish up a bit this highly scholarly discussion. As you correctly pointed out, nononsense disturbed by this obvious lowly incongruency, kind of lost his way in the lenghty copies of copies in this thread. If still in doubt, PM rgelite.

Please forgive him.

Yours truly,

nononsense
 
Quote from nononsense:

Sorry stu,

Thanks for helping Turok. My sole intention was to polish up a bit this highly scholarly discussion.

nononsense
More...

For the record, I (like you apparently) find the bold -- not bold form of quoting to be a bit confusing at times.

Best wishes.

JB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top