He claims he intends to “spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag,” Yeah. Because we banned saying the pledge anywhere. Because you don’t have eighteen hours a day of non-school time to say whatever freaking pledges you want. This isn’t an attempt to weasel "God’ into any freaking situation possible. This is about preserveing our rights!
Sure John Ashcrofts has absolutely zero respect for the first ammendment- which I might add is one of the laws of our nation that he has pledged to uphold. But don’t worry, he’s ignoring our constitution to preserve our rights.
He says “Our government and people can acknowledge the important role religion has played in America’s foundation [and] history,” as reflected by the national motto “In God We Trust,” Well, besides the fact that the national motto has nothing to do with the pledge of alliegience…I fail to see how making people essentially sit through a prayer every morning is a better form of acknowledgment than learning about it in a proper academic setting (a setting in which they might learn that “Under God” was added in the fifties- hardly a reflection of the role of religion in America’s foundation- and what about acknowedging the African religions that were brought over with slavery, and the religions of the Native Americans?). Well, unless this isn’t actually about “acknowledgment” at all but is about slipping relgion into schools in any absurd way imaginable.
So yeah. John Ashcroft wants the Supreme Court to rule on the case without it actually going to trial (which is done, but very rarely). It’s nice to know that he thinks the same thing about checks and balances as he does about the first ammendment. I think- through his persitant lack of respect for the laws of this nation- has shown himself a radical that is unable to perform his duties as Attorny General.
I don’t think “under God” should be in the Pledge. In my opinion, it violates my concept of the Establishment clause. However, there is ample legal precedent that it does not violate the Establishment clause.
I disagree with Ashcroft on this, and many other issues. But he’s really not doing anything that “radical” and he certainly isn’t violating separation of powers by asking the Court to rule without a hearing. He’s not telling the judiciary to do something, he’s asking them to do something.
I agree. I thought he was kook when we were stuck with him here in Missouri. Adding those words in the fifties was (I guess) supposed to set us apart from the godless communists. Why not then restore the pledge to its original glory? Oh, yeah, we still must remind ourselves that we’re better than the communists, oh and the Arabs while we’re at it. Give me a damn break.
I don’t understand why some people don’t get it. As far as I can tell, it can’t get any easier than this:
Voluntary prayer (or mentioning “God”) - if it is good for you, good
Mandatory government-run events or public locations (i.e. school) - good
Voluntary prayer in mandatory government-run events or public locations - if you want to join in, good. if you don’t, good.
Mandatory prayer in mandatory government-run events or pulic locations - Way way wrong.
My first post is an abomination, so let me clarify. I don’t care if “under God” is in the Pledge, because that doesn’t violate the Establishment clause. But I believe, philosophically, the California law is a violation of the First Amendment. However, several cases indicate that the law will pass constitutional muster as it’s written. I think the Ninth Circuit’s decision is well-reasoned, but it also ignored some pretty persuasive precedent.
And asking the Court to rule without an oral argument doesn’t implicate the separation of powers. All Ashcroft is asking is for the use of a legitimate, if rarely used, procedure.
I think Ashcroft is a dangerous wingnut, but I also think a downside of democracy is that we generally get the government we ask for. Don’t blame the jackass, blame the people who made it possible for the jackass to pick up the reins.
This is the kind of shit that drives me nutty. No, if the ruling were allowed to stand it would not bar even a single school child from reciting the pledge. It would bar the affected states from requiring that the version of the pledge including the phrase “under God” be recited. It’s this kind of false statement about the ruling that kicked off the original shitstorm in the first place.