WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state...................
saying that the "one nation, under God" phrase was not about religion, but was simply an expression of our historical religious heritage. And they certainly didn't have the balls either to decide the right way, and strike the phrase.
that the father of this child, the atheist that is trying to impose HIS views on the rest of USA, is doing this against the wishes of his daughter?
The person (his daughter) that he is supposedly trying to protect? Yes, Against her wishes. She has NO problem with saying "One Nation Under God" when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to America!
It was a frivolous lawsuit and there needs to be more judges that throw these dumbass lawsuits out because ONE person has a problem with what the MAJORITY of US do not.
"Whenever we remove a brick from the wall that was designed to separate religion and government, we increase the risk of religious strife and weaken the foundation of our democracy" - Supreme Court Justice Stevens
"The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. ME 10:236
"The measures of the fair majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397
"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:332
"All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes." --Thomas Jefferson: Address to the Cherokee Nation, 1809. ME 16:456
"[We acknowledge] the principle that the majority must give the law." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1788. ME 7:28
"This... [is] a country where the will of the majority is the law, and ought to be the law." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:85
"It is a rule in all countries that what is done by the body of a nation must be submitted to by all its members." --Thomas Jefferson: Address to Miami and Delaware Nations, 1803. ME 16:398
"Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to Garret Vanmeter, 1781. ME 4:417, Papers 5:566
"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:318
you, StartThinking!, and Justice Stevens, for that matters, would apply that rule to the plunderers who seize a large portion of my income for vote-buying schemes. Or to labor unions that are permitted to exercise tyranny of the majority to force other employees to subsidize their activities.
Sadly, Stevens is only worried about "tyranny of the majority" when it serves his secularist political ends.
Besides, "tyranny of the majority" this wasn't. Newdow's daughter is a quite devout Christian who happily leads the Pledge in her school, if reports are accurate. And she is free to decline if she so desires.
I won't beat you about the head and shoulders if you don't respond, as some others do, but could you identify other occasions where you speak out as forcefully against the various "tyrannies" that are imposed every day by our government?
We start with wrongs one at a time. We are not obligated to rectify all wrongs before we can begin.
If the situations you describe in your first paragraph can be credibly characterized as a "tyranny of the majority", then they should be rectified as well.
Lastly, I see no need to describe my history to you.
It seems to me that by focusing narrowly on Newdow's standing, you (like the Supreme Court) are also ducking the church-state separation issue raised by the case. Someone else who does have standing, and thus cannot be shunted aside in the way Newdow was, should bring a new case.
Hindsight may be 20-20, but I thought a long time ago that this flake lacked standing to sue. Indeed, it is only in the Ninth Circus that he could have gotten as far as he did. He should (and may) have been thrown out in the district court.
This was the pathetic spectacle of a father using his own child to advance his personal political agenda. It may not be child abuse, but it sure comes close.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
