Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Social Issues
 Newdow arguements Wednesday the 24th
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 03/23/2004 :  09:10:04  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message
Just a reminder to all Americans out there. Newdow's Pledge of Allegiance arguements begin in front of SCOTUS on the 24th. Should be available for viewing on the SCOTUS website sometime in the next couple of days.

Lets see what BS arguement the government can come up with for the improper enactment of a law which respects an establishment of religion.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion

Trish
SFN Addict

USA
2102 Posts

Posted - 03/23/2004 :  09:24:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Trish a Private Message
Unfortunately, God is non-sectarian and therefore not promoting any one religion over another. Well, unless you're non-religious, which means you don't have a religion, so it doesn't qualify. Or something to that effect with the 'In God We Trust' on our money.

Didn't this already go before the SCOTUS? In 1943? Are they going to reverse the earlier ruling? That should be interesting. Wonder if the JWs will bring it to court again.

...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young

"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 03/23/2004 :  11:12:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Trish

Unfortunately, God is non-sectarian and therefore not promoting any one religion over another. Well, unless you're non-religious, which means you don't have a religion, so it doesn't qualify. Or something to that effect with the 'In God We Trust' on our money.

Didn't this already go before the SCOTUS? In 1943? Are they going to reverse the earlier ruling? That should be interesting. Wonder if the JWs will bring it to court again.



Nope. The 1943 case allows people not to participate. The crux is the wholly religious nature of the law enacted in 1954 which added the words "under God" which is under scrutiny. The Amicus Breifs are up as well as responses. So far, the government's case is in trouble from a legal standpoint.

The "In God We Trust" on coinage wasn't pervasive or required before 1956. It's the second act that should fall, IMHO, on the same grounds. God entails an establishment of religion. Inclusion of God in such patriotic indoctorinization represents a clear respect for that establishment of religion.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

Trish
SFN Addict

USA
2102 Posts

Posted - 03/24/2004 :  10:48:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Trish a Private Message
I don't disagree with you Valiant, I don't see why we have 'In God We Trust' on our money. I do have a $5 bill from 1950 without the repulsive saying on it anywhere. I also have an 1863 penny that has no such inscription. I understand that it first started appearing on our coinage in the late 1800s. When the appearance of coins was left to the US Treasurer. He was a Christian, I think involved in the attempt at that time to re-write the Constitution - adding JC to the text I think it was. (But I could be badly mistaken about this too.)

Hmm, I always thought the '43 case made it wrong after a certain grade to force recitation of the pledge and allowed non-participation in the earlier grades. Of course, I am probably wrong on this too - it wouldn't be the first time.

...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young

"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 03/24/2004 :  11:47:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Trish

I don't disagree with you Valiant, I don't see why we have 'In God We Trust' on our money. I do have a $5 bill from 1950 without the repulsive saying on it anywhere. I also have an 1863 penny that has no such inscription. I understand that it first started appearing on our coinage in the late 1800s. When the appearance of coins was left to the US Treasurer. He was a Christian, I think involved in the attempt at that time to re-write the Constitution - adding JC to the text I think it was. (But I could be badly mistaken about this too.)

Hmm, I always thought the '43 case made it wrong after a certain grade to force recitation of the pledge and allowed non-participation in the earlier grades. Of course, I am probably wrong on this too - it wouldn't be the first time.



You are right on the '43 case. It's just that Newdow v. Elk Grove is about the enactment of the 1954 Act, not recital of the Pledge. It is specifically the inclusion of "under God" and the clearly sectarian motive behind it as evidenced by Eisenhower and Congress.

The motto "In God We Trust" first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin. It was authorized by the Act of April 22, 1864. Congress had to approve all mottoes that appeared on coinage. Even though the 1956 Act commanded the printing of "In God We Trust" on all bills and coinage, the first production run to bear the motto wasn't until 1964.

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html


Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26007 Posts

Posted - 03/25/2004 :  13:22:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
More Newdow news:

Atheist Newdow Loses Suit on Prayer in Congress:
quote:
A day after arguing his case before the U.S. Supreme Court against the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, atheist Michael Newdow on Thursday lost a separate challenge to Congress's use of chaplains to offer prayers.
Newdow dodges pitfalls as first-time Supreme Court lawyer:
quote:
Justices gave the 50-year-old Newdow special permission to argue the case because he has not had his law license long enough to qualify. He sparred with several court members, and after 30 minutes seemed to have won their respect.

"I think he surprised a lot of people. He was superb," said Kenneth Starr, a veteran Supreme Court lawyer who opposes Newdow's position.

"I'd give him an 'A.' He remained undeterred during intense questioning," said Jay Sekulow, chief attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice, which also supports keeping the Pledge of Allegiance as is.
Supreme Court implored to drop God from Pledge:
quote:
Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter tried to corner Newdow with arguments that "under God" isn't explicitly religious, but ceremonially so.

Newdow had a response for that argument. "If that's true, then why did 99 senators stop what they were doing and go out front and say the pledge" when they heard about the lower court's decision in his favor in 2002, Newdow asked. "Why did President Bush interrupt a press conference to talk about its importance? The reason this has become a big deal is because people think it is explicitly religious, and that's the problem with it."
One Nation, Under God:
quote:
[Newdow] says that every time his daughter stands up and says the pledge and reaches the words "under God," she is basically being told that her father is wrong. The other thing he points out is that the quintessential religious question, he said, is, is there a God? And the government with the pledge is saying yes.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.78 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000