Under God

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"Optional 777 / Art / zz /fefum / whatever"

stu/stu/stu/stu/stu/whatever

 

[LongShot]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

"Optional 777 / Art / zz /fefum / whatever"

stu/stu/stu/stu/stu/whatever

You made stu's point point you dummy -he has ONE.

One can't help but wonder why you need so many aliases??

Could it be because you have been banned SEVERAL times lol

 

[stu]

There are 10 words in the First Amendment, the Establishment Clause, that are subject to the opinion of the reader for their meaning.

But they aren’t. They may well be subject to the opinion of the reader, but not for their meaning. The words mean what they are commonly understood to mean. The Court knows what they mean and uses a common meaning of words.John loans Jim $1000 but Jim never needs to repay. Jim's opinion of the meaning of the word loan is gift.

You have not shown how those 10 words can be subjected to an opinion which offers a different meaning to what they hold, without either contradiction, irrelevancy or absurdity,

Seriously, do you have any understanding of how the law works, and how it is subject to judicial opinion?

Seriously, do you know how words work and how they are subject to common meaning?

How will you have any understanding of how the law works if you do not understand the words and their meanings as the Court intends them to be understood and most other people intend them to be understood?

No one is challenging the 10 words,...

Yes they are. You are. Saying they are subject to opinion only for the reader of them to find their meaning, is challenging their actual meaning. That I would say is a dishonest argument, if for no other reason than it’s an obvious absurdity.

John finds it absurd that Jim dishonestly intends a loan is a gift.

....the question is what do they actually mean as the law is applied, what was the intent of the Framers, and what is the spirit behind the Establishment Clause

No, that was your question and not what the argument was about.

What do they actually mean - would be a good enough question to start. It might be a little more honest to accept the Framers meant the words they wrote, to mean what their words say.

And as for the "spirit behind the Establishment Clause" how else should the spirit behind the clause be understood other than by the actual words and their commonly understood meaning. As for any other “spirit”...well...the word God does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. That indicates a certain absence of a certain spirit and for good reasons.

You have your definitions, the court has different ones when it comes to the term religion and the pledge

Then both my definition and the courts are up for scrutiny aren’t they? But not so for you. The Court’s opinion is right by default because you defer to it, because you agree with it. Your argument is an appeal to authority whether or not the authority might be right or wrong.

I state the words of the Establishment Clause are incontrovertible. You state they are not because.....the Court says so, even though the Court says no such thing.

The words of the First mean what they say, if they don't do that, then show me yourself where they don't, without replacing them, ignoring them or attributing your own personal and private meaning to them.

 

[stu]

b. This Court Has Uniformly Stated The Pledge is
Consistent With the Establishment Clause and is Thus
Constitutional. Petitioners submit the EGUSD policy is also constitutional because this Court has repeatedly observed that the Pledge is consistent with the Establishment Clause. While the specific issue of whether the Pledge as currently codified is constitutional has not heretofore been expressly decided by this Court, the subject of the constitutionality of patriotic expressions containing references to God, such as the Pledge, have been discussed by this Court for over forty years.
00248850.DOC 30

This does not show how The Pledge is Consistent With the Establishment Clause. It just says it is.

But this is not an argument about the constitutionality of patriotic expressions containing references to God. It is about the constitutionality of Congress passing law respecting an establishment of religion. It just so happens that the argument is Congress unconstitutionally passed an unconstitutional law into a patriotic expression which previously had no wording passed in law, and which previously did not contain any references to God ,and in which the original writer specifically omitted references to God and in which the public recitation of the Pledge contained no reference to God or religion. Furthermore, the 9th Court has ruled the Pledge as it stands is unconstitutional.

In Engel, this Court held that state officials could not require
the recitation of a prayer in public schools at the beginning of each school day, even if the prayer was denominationally neutral and students who did not wish to participate could be excused while the prayer was being recited. 370 U.S. at 430-33. In reaching its conclusion, this Court noted: There is of course nothing in the decision reached here that is inconsistent with the fact that school children and others are officially encouraged to express love for our country by reciting historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence which contain references to the Deity or by singing officially espoused anthems which include the composer’s professions of faith in a Supreme Being, or with
the fact there are many manifestations in our public life of
belief in God. Such patriotic or ceremonial occasions bare no
true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise that
the State of New York has sponsored in this instance.
Id. at 435 n.21.

This is not about the Declaration of Independence or about references to [a] The Deity* or about singing officially espoused anthems. It is about the action of Congress passing a law respecting an establishment of religion. Under God is respecting an establishment of religion because God is nothing else but a word which connects only with establishments of religion and thereby respects an establishment of religion.

One year later, Justice Brennan examined the allegedly
secular justification behind a statute requiring daily readings from
the Bible noting the justification was to foster harmony and tolerance among the pupils, to enhance the authority of the teacher and to inspire better discipline. Schempp, 374 U.S at 280 (Brennan, J.,concurring). He then questioned why “non-religious means” could not have been used to achieve the noted goals.
It has not been shown that readings from the speeches and
messages of great Americans, for example, or from the
documents of our heritage of liberty, daily recitation of the
Pledge of Allegiance, or even the observance of a moment of
reverent silence at the opening of class, may not adequately
serve the solely secular purposes of the devotional activities
without jeopardizing either the religious liberties of any
members of the community or the proper degree of
separation between the spheres of religion and government.
00248850.DOC 31

It is not observance, readings or recitations I am arguing about. It is the very action of Congress which passed a law respecting (in regard of or in relation to) an establishment (an order or system or institution) of religion( expressed belief in a deity). That is what is in question. Children should be free to say prayers or not, say the Pledge or not, read the Declaration of Independence or not, but Congress should not itself pass law which is respecting an establishment of religion. It has done. That's all. What's so difficult to grasp?

Id. at 281. Thus, Justice Brennan did not consider the Pledge to be a statement of religious expression. Justice Brennan went on to explain that certain activities do not have religious meaning due to the fact that such activities have been so interwoven into the fabric of our society that their use “may well not present that type of involvement which the First Amendment prohibits.” Id. at 303.
He found this principle insulates various patriotic exercises and activities utilized in public schools which, whatever their origins, have ceased to have any religious purpose or meaning. Id. As a result, the reference to God in the Pledge merely recognizes the historical fact that our nation was believed to be founded under God. Id.

This opinion - of the Justice's opinion - is invalid to this argument. It is also incorrect. The word God is not without religious purpose or meaning. If that is the case, the words Christ, Allah and The Almighty, St Paul, The Virgin Mary, are without religious purpose or meaning too. So are the words used in this ‘opinion of an opinion’ link of yours, The Deity, Supreme Being are now meaningless words to the Court. Your link contains utter twaddle.

I am not arguing about religious activities which it is stated Justice Brennan explains “… do not have religious meaning due to the fact that such activities have been so interwoven into the fabric of our society” . I am talking of an act of Congress.

Since when did an act of Congress by the passing of Unconstitutional law become described as “certain activities interwoven into the fabric of our society”. If it’s unconstitutional for long enough then it’s not unconstitutional , its just "woven into the fabric of society" ? 5 years, fifty years, 100 years.. then it becomes no longer unconstitutional? Disregarding all the many and various objectors there are to the unconstitutional law. It just becomes constitutional even though it isn’t. Great law that is. Not.

 

[stu]

In Lynch, this Court considered the constitutionality of the
city’s placement of a creche in a Christmas display that was situated in a park owned by a non-profit organization. 465 U.S. at 671. This Court recognized our nation’s history contains numerous official references to vows or invocations of divine guidance in deliberations and pronouncements of the founding fathers. Id. at 675.

Examples include references to God in the national motto (“In God We Trust”) and in the Pledge (“one nation under God”). Id. at 676.

This Court noted that such references to God are consistent with our history and do not violate the Establishment ClauseId.

The Christmas creche is nothing to do with invoking something by law. The City is not Congress. They did not invoke a law to insert a creche into a public pledge. Red herring.

And as for the writers of this apology to what would be bad law from their own analysis, they make themselves look very suspect and wanting in objectivity. Let's look again at this in particular…

"This Court recognized our nation’s history contains numerous official references to vows or invocations of divine guidance in deliberations and pronouncements of the founding fathers. Id. at 675. Examples include references to God in the national motto (“In God We Trust”) and in the Pledge (“one nation under God”). Id. at 676.

Now just when the hell did the Founding Fathers divinely guide and deliberate pronouncements of "one nation under God" when it was written only in the 1950's. This is the kind of misleading opinion which you like to defer to?

But this is all diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue. It is not about other references, it is about the specific action by Congress of making law of the kind which the Constitution states they should not.

Importantly, the Court made this statement while also acknowledging the Pledge is recited by many thousands of public school children each year. Id.

Thus, it is difficult to understand how the Newdow II majority reaches the conclusion that recitation of the Pledge has a coercive effect on objecting students who must listen to willing students recite the Pledge, when this Court has previously acknowledged recitation of the Pledge is constitutional in public schools.

In concurring in this Court’s decision in Lynch, Justice
O’Connor noted that the creche was, [N]o more an endorsement of religion than such governmental “acknowledgments” of religion as legislative prayers of the type approved in Marsh (citation omitted), government declaration of Thanksgiving as a public holiday, 00248850.DOC 32 printing of “In God We Trust” on coins, and opening court sessions with “God save the United States and this honorable court.” Those government acknowledgments of religion serve, in the only ways reasonably possible in our culture, the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, expressing confidence in the future, and encouraging the recognition of what is worthy of appreciation in society. For
that reason, and because of their history and ubiquity, those
practices are not understood as conveying government
approval of particular religious beliefs.
Id. at 692-93.

Already dealt with. I already acknowledged and indeed insist, everyone should be free to do all that and more. Government can express the religious culture by a declaration of Thanksgiving as a public holiday or whatever they want. The freedom to practice and freedom from practicing is what counts. And the difference is, it becomes unconstitutional when Congress passes law which states the government approval of religious belief. “under God” is a statement which is directly respecting religious belief to be enshrined in law. That's what respecting an establishment of religion IS, that’s what Unconstitutional IS.

This stuff in your link appears to be the equivalent of a religious law apologist’s version of the pseudo science concoctions by the creationists and is why I didn’t and still don’t consider it worthy of its server space. Take some case law, irrespective of direct relevance, apply contorted logic to it and finally wrap it up in legalese. Voila, argument dodged.

Your preference to defer to the stuff shown in your link offers no sign of an imperative on your behalf to do other than take everything associated with religion and law entirely at face value wherever it suits your purpose.




nb: * I hadn't previously noticed this refers to THE Deity. According to your link The Court refers to a Supreme Being but THE Deity? Quote: “.....Declaration of Independence which contain references to The Deity". Factually incorrect.

The Declaration of Independence contains references to what might possibly by inference be assumed as... a deity, but an ambiguous one at that. “Nature's God” and “their Creator “ are not The Deity by any stretch.

Their judgeships need to get out more, or is it that the comments written in your link are the work of someone who has it religiously lodged in their brain that there can only be one deity. Pseudo opinion, pseudo law, from a pseudo lawyer perhaps.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"But they aren’t. They may well be subject to the opinion of the reader, but not for their meaning. The words mean what they are commonly understood to mean. The Court knows what they mean and uses a common meaning of words.John loans Jim $1000 but Jim never needs to repay. Jim's opinion of the meaning of the word loan is gift.

You have not shown how those 10 words can be subjected to an opinion which offers a different meaning to what they hold, without either contradiction, irrelevancy or absurdity,

If what you say is true, that there is no room for opinion on what those 10 words mean, what the concept means, what the intentions of the Framers were, what is your explanation for the difference of opinion?

The High Court does know what they mean, and they have ruled that the pledge is not in violation of the Establishment Clause as cited in their ruling on Elk Grove. According to the common meaning of the words in question, the pledge is not a prayer of religion, and its voluntary use not an establishment of religion.

The two words "under God" do not constitute the establishment nor practice of religion in the context and manner in which they are used in the pledge.

The only absurdity I see is how someone fails to understand that most simple concept.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

The words of the First mean what they say, if they don't do that, then show me yourself where they don't, without replacing them, ignoring them or attributing your own personal and private meaning to them.

You are attributing your own personal and private meaning to the words, why don't you see that? God=religion is your statement, and it is a false statement. God does not equal religion, God is not the equivalent of religion. You are arguing from the assumption that God is the product of religion, rather than existing separate from religion. You have no proof that that is true. Religion is worship of God, every reasonable person knows that. A parrot repeating the word God is not practicing religion. A computer repeating the word God because it was programmed is not practicing religion, and someone saying "under God" in the context of the pledge is not practicing religion.

If a gun was held to you head, and you were told to say the current pledge daily for the rest of your life, would you suddenly become a religious man found to be practicing religion?

Nonsense.

The religiousness of the word God comes from someone's feelings and faith in God, their reason for invoking the name of God, not from mindless repetition.

Any expert in religion will confirm that.

Don't you get it that you are not the final authority on the English language, the meaning of the words as they were written, as they should be interpreted, etc.?

So your argument is that you are right without opinion at the foundation of your righteousness, and the court's opinion is wrong.

Too bad you ain't the judge.

Unless you can do more than simply spew opinion, opinion unsupported by the court, unsupported by legal tests, case law, common understanding of what religions is, professional understanding of what religion is (people who make their living by the teaching and practice of religion don't on the majority agree with you) then I don't see where this argument goes anywhere.

Your disdain and lack of respect for the opinion of the court, lacking legal expertise to counter it, sure looks to me like a sore loser.

Oh well, wouldn't be the first time someone disagreed with the court, but continued to think they were right anyway.

In the final analysis, there is no absolute right or wrong here, just opinion.

I think you have made a very weak case to support your opinion.

 

[FLESH GORDON]

"One nation under God blah blah bah bahahha"

It means just what it says..and should be removed!

period!

get God off MY money and out my govt!!!!

i am an intelligent adult;i have no need for fairy tales!

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

You are an intelligent adult?

ROTFLMAO.

Quote from FLESH GORDON:

"One nation under God blah blah bah bahahha"

It means just what it says..and should be removed!

period!

get God off MY money and out my govt!!!!

i am an intelligent adult;i have no need for fairy tales!

 

[FLESH GORDON]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

You are an intelligent adult?

ROTFLMAO.

stick around... i get brighter as night grows longer!