Read the last two paragraphs.

"Allow" schoolchildren to say "under God"?  The point of all of this is that reciting the Pledge is mandatory, and that saying "under God" is a line of the Pledge.  

His bit in the last paragraph is too funny...I thought America was "about" people FLEEING religious doctrine setting up a country where there was separation of church and state.



-- Modified on 9/23/2004 12:22:53 PM

or non-Christians, for that matter.

First of all, I'm an atheist, 've never set foot in a church my whole life.

Are "under God" in the pledge, or "In God We Trust" in our bills, bothering you that much?  Are you losing sleep over it?  If you have friends that want to say grace before dinner, do you refuse to join in?  Do you not go to religious ceremonies or events?  If you have to list all the problems in America, is this even in the top 100 for you?

Nobody is forcing a religion on you, in a country where 90% of people call themselves Christians, at least accept that Christianity is a big part of America's heritage and tradition.  

As a non-Christian, I will tell you that Christianity has a very strong and pernicious hold on this country.  One does feel put apon by it.  And the strength of the "religious right" IS scary!  If you think about it, having people who BELIEVE in Fairy Tales anywhere near the political process is frightening.

NOWHERE else in the world are these loonies so catered to!  Here, they HOLD THE WHITE HOUSE!

Even in heavily Catholic countries like in SA or the Philipines, religion is seen as mainly a metaphor.  ONLY in the US and some Islamic countries are religious texts seen as actual facts!  

It's a big factor in Euros maintaining their intellectual superiority to us.  Every time we seem to be coming along, they can point to some insane ruling in a southern state or our wacko in the White house and stick a pin in our veneer of modernism.

It's been unconstitutional for 61 years to force schoolchildren to say the pledge (that was even before "under God" was added to it, in 1954).  The Supreme Court decided that issue in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, in 1943.

So, by your own ignorance of the law (and please don't read into that negative connotations; most people are ignorant of the law), you demonstrate the ridiculous nature of Michael Newdow's position.  He has no "tolerance" (there's a word you lefties love) for those who want to do so voluntarily.  Not only does he not want his daughter to say it --- even if she wants to, which she does --- he wants to prevent everyone else from saying it, too.

I agree it's not a big deal, by itself.  However, do you believe nobody is forcing their religion on Gays, or on women who cannot/will not raise a child (I agree, abortion is morally wrong - But who TF am I to tell a woman how to live).

You have these right wingers crying about how arrogant the left is - Yet, they would dictate morality to others (and, to top it off, they are the biggest F'n hypocrites).  This arrogance is a big problem with America (and GWB represents this all too well - ``Mission Accomplished'', Yeah right).

I was under the impression that his daughter was getting into trouble by not saying it.  Where can I read up on this?

Our constitution has a First Amendment.  "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

If we are made to declare, most solemnly, that our nation is under God, if whenever we make a commercial transaction, we are made to affirm our trust in God by exchanging coins with that phrase, that's establishing a religion.  There's no argument about that.

The constitution is a written promise.  We have to hold the government to it or face the danger of losing all our rights.
Notwithstanding arguments about whether the founding fathers were Christian, and therefore, if they wrote that phrase, and didn't mean it. If this is the case, they were simply lying.  I'm not going to cede to Christians the right to simply lie.  If the words don't mean what they say, we should amend the constitution to change it, or give it a decent burial: a very Christian thing.    

/Zin

This whole issue is absurd and the action by the House is an exercise in stupidity.  Maybe they haven't read the Constitution but as I recall there isn't an article that allows Congress to dictate to the Supreme Court what cases it can or cannot hear.

Absolutely true that the religious right are the biggest fn-hypocrites..

I went to catholic schools growing up, now, I'm rather cyncial about religion....(Though I have no problem w/In God We Trust on money or under God in the pledge)...Problem I have from first hand experience w/family members & the parents of friends from my school days was that I found these so-called "religious people" to be the most mean-spirited, & intolerant people one could imagine....As soon as they left Sunday mass, they were entirely different people.....Memo to Christians: there's alot more to being a good christian than just attending a Sunday service & putting $2.00 in the poor box......

Does anyone listen to Howard Stern?....Today he played a tape of Jimmy Swaggart blasting gays: saying such tolerant things like  if a gay looks at him, he'd kill him (real Christian, when was the last time Jesus adovated killing gays??) & likening a gay marriage to marrying a pig (real intelligent Jimmy)

Just goes to show people don't read our history and why this country was founded - or what the definition of seperation of church & state really means.

Seeking to legislate something that requires a Constitutional Amendment?  

Besides, how about violating the First Amendment, here?  What happens to the citizens right to petition the government for the redress of grievances when the courts can't be used?

I don't think Congress really realizes what will happen when they do this.

/Zin  

"In all other Cases before mentioned [in paragraph 1, setting forth "the judicial Power"], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

So, you see, Congress can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supremes, and has done so in the past.  The last time that it did so was to limit the Court's power in the post-Civil War era, when the Court was far less imperial (imperious?) than it is today.  The most famous case is Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. (74 U.S.) 506, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1869).  It dismissed an appeal of a habeas corpus petition brought by a Mississippi newspaper editor held in military custody during Reconstruction on charges of publishing "incendiary and libelous articles," after Congress passed a law, subsequent to oral argument, divesting the Court of jurisdiction to hear such appeals, and cites the constitutional provision quoted above.

but your impression is mistaken.  It was widely reported after the Ninth Circuit's decision that Newdow's former paramour, the child's mother, intervened to assert her daughter's interests, which were at odds with Newdow's demands.  But under no circumstances was his daughter getting in trouble with anyone for saying it.  She was only getting in trouble with Newdow for saying it.

your premises are false.  First, as noted in my responsive post above, Congress clearly has the power to alter legislatively the appellate jurisdiction of the Supremes, as set forth in Art. III, section 2, paragraph 2, sentence 2, and recognized by the Supremes in Ex parte McCardle (1869).

Second, the "citizens [sic] right to petition the government for the redress of grievances" doesn't necessarily, or even primarily, apply to the courts.  It is addressed primarily to the Congress.

I think you don't understand- sure religious threads drove many to come to america.  BUT EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALISED COUNTRY IS OVER IT- MOVING ON.  WE are the ONLY country still mired in religiuos bullshit, except for the Muslim states!  

Do you really want that company?  To have other educated people look down on you as associated with people who believe in fairy tales?  To have your president a luaghingstock?

If the freakin' IRISH and ITALIANS can move past reliance on my ancestors' creation myths and early legends to rule their lives, we ought to be able to get there!  Christ!, even israelis make jokes about the goofy Yanks with their constant Christ-harping!

For proof of how this can go, I have only to point to the wackos in the American Cof E, who are choosing to align themselves with AFRICAN churches to avoid treating Gays with repect!

"With such exceptions..." might just mean whether Congress wants to give it original jurisdiction rather than appellate jurisdiction.  It doesn't say that Congress can take it out of the Court's jurisdiction completely, a very important power to leave so vague.  

I'll agree with your second one, except that the usual procedure is to petition the Courts, not the Congress.  I don't know that the framers of the Constitution could have foreseen that.  What is a law suit but such a petition?

I doubt that the bill proposed will pass the courts, BTW.  I can't see even strict constructionists giving Congress that power.  

/Zin

having litigated quite a few such cases, and can therefore speak with some authority on the issue.

No. 2 --- Marbury v. Madison settled in the negative whether Congress can expand the Court's original jurisdiction, so you simply demonstrate your lack of knowledge on the subject when you try to float that lead balloon.

As to your comment that "the usual procedure is to petition the Courts, not the Congress," you are correct, but that's the modern practice, not what the Framers primarily intended.  You merely cite a practice which has contributed to the rise of the imperial judiciary.

While I agree that the bill probably won't pass, Congress certainly has the power.