Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (52348)	7/8/2002 5:21:24 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) of 82486

Non dominate religions can be either objectionable (to many people) or dangerous to a free people, or both. In any case the issue is establishment. If school prayer or reciting the pledge with "under god" in it is establishment of religion then I would say that non dominant religions can be "established". If something has to meet a higher standard to be considered establishment of a religion, than I don't see the pledge with "under God" as meeting those standards. The only standard that it might meet is that of having the word God (or god if you view it more generically) being mentioned on government property by a government employee who is acting as a government employee at the time when the word is used. If that is "establishment of religion" then the pledge with "under god" is unconstitutional, but so is "In God we trust", and the prayers at the beginning of a session of congress, or the president mentioning God in the state of the union address. Also a similar mention of a majority or even extinct religion ("one nation under Allah" or perhaps under Odin) would also be a case of establishment of religion. In fact the case would be stronger here because there is IMO no reasonable way to make the case that "under Allah", or "under Odin" involves generic deism. While I disagree with the decision I don't think it is ridiculous. I think that the issues this case raises are serious enough that they would cause me to oppose adding "under God" to the pledge if it was not already there. I also think it is appropriate for a court to ban mandatory recitals of any pledge containing "under God", but I think it is judicial activism to ban reciting the pledge in school as long as people who objected could either not say "under god", or just refuse to say the pledge. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next