So far as I can tell, you have no interest in debating; your participation is repeating conclusory statements emphatically. You don’t supply cites; you don’t do anything except announce great truths as you see them.
So I have become a convert to the Der Trihs school of debate. I realize now my foolishness in looking up citations and providing links to them. I have decided to take the easy way, the Der Trihs Way.
How am I doing so far? Got any tips for a rookie, eager to learn?
Make actual arguments.
I get it. The Master says, “Do as I say, don’t do as I do.”
Well, like it or not, I’ve decided I’m ready for the Big Time. So no way, dude. I’m using the Der Trihs method from here on out.
Bricker, if another poster is not going to particpate, you are better to ignore him than to emulate him.
There are multiple posters who are engaging you in a legitimate fashion; simply focus on those posts.
A flat statement I’m wrong, without even a claim as to why I’m wrong isn’t an argument. Nor are thinly veiled insults that have nothing to do with the subject. Nor are you actually imitating me.
What you ARE doing is what you’ve been doing this whole thread; tapdancing around trying to avoid admitting the sky is blue. You’d obviously much prefer to argue against my style than against what I say.
This is not in reference to any legal precedent, just semantics & logic.
I don’t think we have been considering the word in the Pledge that precedes “God,” “under.” This word should not be ignored.
If I work for a boss, I am under him. There is an unambiguous, subordinate relationship in the use of this word. You might argue that the use of “God” isn’t religious. :rolleyes: But if you say that our country is subordinate to a particular – and not generic – object, it strongly implies a worshipful attitude towards a well-known, specific deity.
It says you, as a citizen, are acknowledging a subordinate relationship to a God, and that** God rules over the nation.**
It doesn’t say, “one nation with God,” “one nation that appreciates God,” or “one nation that plays basketball with God.” It says, “one nation, under God.”
There is no way you can trivialize this. The 1950’s Pledge editors clearly intended this interpretation; common sense and semantics requires it.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t agree, the law is an ass.
Wouldn’t it only mean that if taken out of proportion vs. other pieces of history or tradition, or alternatives to religion? I mean, if you’re forbidden to have religious nods, but you’re also forbidden to have anti-religious nods, then surely that’s neutral? Hostile, to me, would mean not only forbidding pro-religious nods but also allowing (or even mandating) anti-religious nods. In other words, such a situation is only hostile to religion if religion is being singled out - if you’re simply trying to forbid any kind of religious or irreligious linkage then it is that linkage that you’re hostile to, not one aspect or type of that linkage.
[QUOTE=Monty]
I’m probably going to regret asking this, but here goes anyway. How is “ceremonial deism” not “ceremonial religion” and thus “religion”?
[/QUOTE]
Quote:
Not only that, it’s also a crap usage of the term by the courts, as Rostow claimed that anything falling under that definition would be consitutional because it was so conventional and uncontroversial. I’m thinking it doesn’t really pass that test, but I’m sure a bright legal mind like Scalia will find a way to rationalize that. Fucking activist judges.
DMC: EXACTLY! All Bricker’s doing is repeating the latest court decision and stating that it’s similar to earlier court decisions. Nobody’s arguing that it’s not. What some of are doing is stating those decisions are (incredibly) thinly veiled malarkey crafted to avoid calling the elephant in the room an elephant.
Yes it is.
I don’t think “we” have read this thread. 
Post #10:
Question answered, thanks for the response Bricker. It still seems backwards to me, but no one claims the system’s perfect. I’ll now leave you in the tender care of villa, Der trihs, DMC et al. You probably fell like a chess master at one of 10 games at once exhibitions.
Standing law is… intriguing. It’s saying not that there is no establishment, or that any establishment is de minimis, but instead that you can’t even challenge it. My personal opinion is that in constitutional cases, the current standing requirements do significantly more harm than good.
So, let me get this straight: Because the Supreme Court ruled a particular way doesn’t mean that it’s merely law, but actually that it’s Truth, Justice, and The American Way[sup]®[/sup]. What that really means then is that Justice and Truth require that we not treat Black Americans—oops, I mean descendants of Black Africans as American citizens and it’s wrong for the government to extend the protections of the United States Constitution to them as they are just property. Obviously, that’s not the case (sorry about the pun).
Look, Bricker, we all know what the court’s past and current decisions are about the words in question. We’re stating that the old decisions and the current decision are just so much bunk, just like its previous decisions on this issue. A number of us feel that the court chickened out and made a weaselly decision on this issue…yet again. We are not saying that the decision isn’t law. We’re saying that it’s lame. We were also hoping that the current court would have realized that the previous decisions were bunk and cowardly and that the court would man up and reverse itself.
And, no, I am not a non-religious person.
No it isn’t, it’s just contradiction!
Why is that? Why am I constrained in a different manner than he? He’s free to simply spew unsupported statements; why am I not? I’m responding to other posters correctly, but I fail to see why I should have to comply with the purpose of Great Debates and another poster is permitted to ignore them.
I assume you have offered this guidance as a poster, not as a moderator, due to the absence of a “modding” tag or note. If your guidance is as a moderator, of course, I will comply.
Of course, I’ll also ask that the rule be applied to Der Trihs.
To be fair, that’s not what everyone is saying. There are various ways to look at this that can all fall under the banner of “it’s unconstitutional.”
[ol]
[li]A court has ruled it to be unconstitutional. This is pretty obviously bollocks, as the most senior court to look at this law just ruled it constitutional[/li][li]The court made a mistake, and misapplied current controlling precendent (Lemon). In which case the Supreme Court will grant cert and reverse.[/li][li]The court made a mistake, and missapplied current controlling precedent (Lemon). However, even if the Supreme Court grants cert, it will also misapply Lemon and affirm.[/li][li]The court correctly applied controlling precedent (Lemon), but Lemon is itself flawed, and needs reversal. The Supreme Court will take this opportunity to grant cert and overrule Lemon, leading us to a paradise of secular governance[/li][li]The court correctly applied controlling precedent (Lemon), but Lemon itself is flawed, and needs reversal. The Supreme Court, however, doesn’t have the balls to do this and will go on making contradictory religious decisions.[/li][li]The court incorrectly applied Lemon, which is flawed anyway, and nothing is going to be done about any of this, and we will continue with utterly inconsistent, impossible to defend decisions on religion (and sex, but that’s a different argument)[/li][/ol]
I’m arguing for both 3 and 6. But it is kinda tough to attempt to counter multiple arguments when they could be any of these, and the people aren’t necessarily clear which they are saying. It’s even harder to do when you are patently on the wrong side, as Frere Bricker is on this. 
I don’t agree. Your logic hinges on the phrase being of some meaningful religious significance. It’s not. That why “nod” as opposed to some more serious word.
When someone takes deliberate aim at removing even the most insignificant nod towards religion, one that has a strong basis in history, that is fairly described as an anti-religious attack.
Looking back to the first fifty years of the nation’s existence, how many examples could I find of much more blatant invocations of the word “God?” Lots.
So when we say “under God” now, we’re adverting to that history. But your attack on it is not premised on a view that the history is inaccurate or the view that we should not invoke history – it’s premised on the fact that you see it as religious. Since it’s not, that’s anti-religious.
Well, this is where refusing to look to legislative history falls down. That makes it very clear that the addition of “under God” to the Pledge isn’t adverting to the history of the country, and has a specific religious intent behind it (as well, I will grant, a political one, but the political one is odd because it has a religious aspect to it).
But more importantly, I think the comparison you draw here defeats your own argument. By comparing the addition of “under God” to the Pledge with the “much more blatant invocations of the word ‘God’” from “the first fifty years of the nation’s existence” you are comparing apples and oranges. Use of such language was much more common then - it was a much greater part of the common vernacular, and the country was far more homogenous in a religous sense. In the first 50 years of the country, you could probably count the number of Muslims (sorry Musslemen) in the United States on one hand - well, apart from the slaves, but they didn’t really count. Similarly the number of open atheists. As that shifted, so both the impact and purpose of such comments shifted. Seen in the light of American Society at that time, and the announced intentions of the addition of the phrase, the religious impact of “under God” is, I’d argue (see - put that in just for you), significantly higher in the 1950s than the 1820s, and even higher now than then.
It’s not premised on the fact that he sees it as religious. It’s premised on the fact that it is religious.
You can’t have it both ways. Either it is meaningless, and therefore serves no purpose at all, or it isn’t.