Historically, the Court has always looked hard for a way to weasel out of a difficult decision. Example: U of Cal vs. Bakke.
They often hope the problem will be solved another way in the meantime, such as thru legislation. Not likely in the Newdow case, however. There are ultra-fundies looking to move government the opposite way, and Newdow is not the mainstream.
Note that “mov[ing] the government the opposite way” is still “solving the issue” in a legal sense. If the ultra-fundies manage to dismantle the establishment clause then the issue is decided as surely as if the SoCaS proponents legislate “under God” out of the pledge.
Enjoy,
Steven
What you say about the founding fathers is false. They had a great deal of interest in how they saw and worshipped God. George Washington, prayed every day. Thomas Jefferson made his own Bible, not because he didn’t believe in God, but because he didn’t believe in the Bible. If you think any of our founding fathers had no interest in religion please show a cite.
Now let’s talk about freedom:
Freedom doesn’t come without responsibility. It has to continually be reinforced and defended, because there are those who feel they deserve more, in fact, they think they should own everything, and only their way is the right way.
It takes a mature populous to make freedom work. They need to learn respect for others ideas and beliefs. Toleration is the theme of freedom. I have been posting on the board for over two years. I have never witnessed such disrespect for theists anywhere. They are run off the board with name calling and insults. If you don’t allow others the freedom of their beliefs, you don’t deserve any yourself.
Do you realize over one million Americans have died preserving this freedom you enjoy, but don’t wish to extend to others. There are neo-nazies, satanists, and all kinds of cults allowed to practice their religion in this country. Why not theists? Even atheists have a religion, faith in non-God, organizations, attempts to enlist others in their organization.
I am not allowed to say more.
This country is the greatest country on this earth. We defend freedom in this world, and give the conquered back their country free and clear. Check out Germany, Japan, Italy, France, and many more. Does this country make mistakes, of course it does. Bad leaders, wrong decisions, etc. I don’t like every decision this country makes, but by damn it is my county. God bless America.
Love
I have absolutely nothing against Allah, just another name for God. You have to be bigoted to post such. Freedom means respect. I don’t care what they put on the money as long as it’s good, and I can spend it.
Love
One can only hope this is true.
Don’t you folks ever actually read your history?
The reason this country “came into being” was to establish a less encumbered taxation system that (legitimately) freed the North American colonists from, interference by the East India monopoly and to (less legitimately) escape the burden of repaying their defense debt remaining from the French and Indian War.
Now, you might have a small claim regarding how the country was settled:
The Pilgrims came over to avoid having to associate with people with whom they disagreed (they were not actively being persecuted). However, the later Puritans came over to impose their belief on others, since they had been pushed out of power in Britain and were mad that they were no longer able to dictate their religious beliefs to others. Roger Williams was compelled to establish Rhode Island as a refuge of religious freedom from American religious tyranny in (Puritan dominated) Massachusetts. The Lords Baltimore did establish Maryland to provide freedom for outlawed Catholics from Britain (although not for Jews), but long before the War for Independence, their grandkids converted to the Church of England and the settlers from Virginia moved into Maryland to outlaw Catholicism. The remaining colonies were all settled (or stolen) for profit, not for religious freedom.
“Founded on a belief in God”? Not according to the writings of Jefferson and Madison. “God” did not make it onto the money until it showed up on a coin in 1864. (Theodore Roosevelt argued that such an act was an abomination.) It was not added to paper currency until 1964. “Under God” was only added to our Pledge (written by a shudder Socialist) until 1954. And it was only added to real the U.S. motto (E Pluribus Unum) in 1956. (Fortunately, Congress forgot to rescind the original motto, so I can still support it.) Note how many of these actions were purely political cheers against Soviet Russia. We keep claiming that we defeated the “communists,” why can’t we retire our war chants?
We conquered France and gave it back? Got a date for that?
Alternatively, we have enslaved (or helped local politicians enslave for our benefit) Nicaragua (multiple times), Haiti, Cuba, Philipines, Iran, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile and a few others (while unsuccessfully attempting the same thing in such places as Angola). Yeah, we’ve made a “few” mistakes. Just thank God you did not happen to be living in any of the places where U.S.-trained death squads and secret police were “making the world safe for Democracy” (or Wall St. or something). The notion that the U.S. (which has done many good and noble things) is following some mandate from God to make the world a better place is the very epitome of willfully blind hubris.
There is a certain amount of anti-theist sentiment on this board. However, I’ve been posting on this board and its AOL predecessor for nearly seven years. I am a pretty outspoken theist. I have not been “run off” and have never felt that anyone was attempting to force me to leave. Perhaps there is some other dynamic at work than mere opposition to theism? (Aversion to distorted facts and bad logic come to mind.)
Here is a National Quiz that proves that liberals are amoral.
Don’t cheat, answer honestly…
(Check one box and one box only for each question)
(1) I believe that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance
constitute an act by the US Government to establish a religion.
_______________________________________________YES [ ] NO [ ]
(2) I believe that Newdow has pursued this case to the Supreme Court
not because he uses his daughter to garner himself fame, but because he
wants her to grow up to be guided by the inherent truths of Atheism.
_______________________________________________YES [ ] NO [ ]
(3) I know where the light goes when the light goes out.
_______________________________________________YES [ ] NO [ ]
Answers and scoring below…
Questions (2) and (3) are trick questions used here to determine if the test subject is telling the truth. Only question (1) counts.
The lowest IQ recorded in the animal world in modern times was recorded by a Broad Tailed Swallowtail Butterfly in 1982 who scored a 2 on the SAT.
But even the lowly Swallowtail Butterfy knows that the inclusion of the innocuous phrase “under God” does not constitute the "establishment of a religion’.
Clearly all liberal are smarter than butterflies so therefore all liberals who answer YES on the questionaire are lying and are therefore amoral.
And those who answer NO are at heart… Repulicans.
In my garden, butterflies are not considered to be highly-regarded philosophers and are readily picked off by birds.
There are those among the higher orders of the animal kingdom, the ones who reason at a greater level, who think that the phrase “under God” is offensive to them and contrary to their beliefs and that its use in a government-sponsored document does constitute an establishment of religion. I am one of them, and so is Michael Newdow.
The color of your text is not likely to change my opinion or Mr. Newdow’s. He remains my hero as the OP says. And I am not a liberal, either.
Extremely well said, amigo. Remind me to give you a call for editorial input next time I write a Supreme Court brief.
Of course, given my typical cases, it’ll be something completely lame like the interaction of the Robinson-Patman Act with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a. 
Exactly so, pravnik. Jeez, how many Supreme Court cases did we read in second-year Family Law? I don’t seem to recall the Justices recoiling in Article III horror when they were presented with any number of child custody claims. And this one didn’t even require them to determine a damn thing about the little girl’s custody–the only substantive issue presented by the lawsuit was whether the government violated the establishment clause through the “under God” bit, not which parent had the right to pick up the daughter after soccer practice.
There is a much better escape clause that is always available to the Court: cert. denied. Standing only becomes an escape once they’ve granted review in the first place. It’s still chickenshit, of course, but at least it has the illusion of looking like they’re waiting for a better case or something.
Freedom means the power and authority to tell the state to tongue-wash my balls.
Like I said, this has been rehashed many, many times on this board. You can do a search if you like, or ignore the point. (BTW, Jefferson’s new Bible deleted any reference to God, didn’t it?)
This is hilarious. I’ve been on the board for over 4 years. Guess what? I’m a devout Catholic. Your appeal to authority here is pathetic and invalid.
Excuse me?!? What freedom am I trying to withhold from others? This statement is utter bullshit and extremely offensive - I’d really like an explanation.
So who the hell here is trying to stop them? I’m not. Would taking out “under God” and “In God We Trust” make your religious practices null and void? That’s a pretty pathetic display of faith you have there, lekatt. I’d like to think that such secular uses of religious terms and symbols undermines my faith, rather than strengthen them.
So far, you haven’t said anything of substance or merit. Why don’t you give it the ole college try, hmmm?
Milum, my answers to your quiz: No, No, Yes. Your first question as worded is irrelevent, but I don’t expect you to be able to grasp that concept.
Just as long as that means my bowling balls. Else I’d rather not have the state that close to my ass, mind you.
But really, it makes the Supremes look… I can’t really find a word for it… well, like the opportunity to ditch the case on procedural rather than substantive grounds was the answer to their prayers – irony fully intended.
Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion is remarkable, not to say more than a little scary. What he seems to say is that as a matter of Constitutional law the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment is operative against the several states by incorporation in the Fourteenth Amendment, but that the “establishment” clause is not. This is essentially the argument Alabama Chief Justice Moore was making in the defugalty over mis monolithic Ten Commandments shrine several months ago. Here is the introductory paragraph of Justice Thomas’s concurrence. It gives the flavor of the whole thing:
Apparently it is Justice Thomas’s position that the State of Iowa could declare its self to be, for instance, a Methodist jurisdiction and promote the principles, dogmas and creeds of the United Methodist Church, and put up John Wesley’s portrait in the schools and courthouses and tax me for the support of the Methodist Church, but the state by the exercise of its police powers could not prevent me from using ‘Debts" and Debtors" in the Lord’s Prayer in the Presbyterian tradition. This strikes me as a genuinely bizarre view of the First Amendment as well as the Fourteenth.
Do you suppose the good justice is channeling Judge/Professor Bork?
I hadn’t read Thomas’ concurrence; that is indeed scary, especially when he says things like this:
Probably??? PROBABLY??? :smack:
Not such a nutty view given American religious history. Keep in mind that there was an established church in Massachusetts until well into the nineteenth century, and that it was supported by public money.
Whether such an establishment can be made in practice today is doubtful. But there’s ample precedent for it.
This was before the 14th amendment, which has been construed as making the Bill of Rights applicable to the States.
“Doubtful” isn’t strong enough a word to describe the probably of a State sponsored church being ruled constitutional today. Doubtful implies that the issue is up in the air. The chances are extremely remote. Only the extreme conservatives on the court like Justice Thomas and Scalia would uphold such a thing.
Holy crap, Thomas has gone off the deep end. It’s perfectly sensible to point out–as Thomas does–the Establishment Clause jurisprudence is all over the map. But it is another thing entirely to argue that the inconsistencies mean that the Establishment Clause does not apply (via the 14th Amendment) against the states.
It’s particularly loopy to make that claim, purportedly based on some alleged textualist reading, while also conceding that the Free Exercise Clause does apply against the states. I mean, come one, the two clauses are both made operable by the same damn introductory phrase! (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”)
Has Thomas been sneaking into his buddy Rush’s stash? 'Cause that opinion is some seriously messed up shit.
Reread what he said, though.
He’s not talking about a church sponsored by a state government prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, he’s questioning whether the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” prevents Congress from establishing a religion. That’s nuttier than a Payday bar.
Milum, you’re one of the funniest posters here. I only wish you’d post more often. 