Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : What Next??? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (101)	6/27/2002 2:01:01 AM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 390

Yes Yes Yes No

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (101)	6/27/2002 2:04:05 AM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 390

Now......I've been reading this page for a little over 2 1/2 hours so I'm not quit as stupid as you already believe or as I have lead you to believe. By my take......this ruling doesn't sound long for this world. SAN FRANCISCO -- The man who filed suit to strike the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance says his family is being threatened, and he could "be dead tomorrow." California atheist Michael Newdow says he wants to restore the Pledge to its pre-1954 version because no one should be forced to worship a religion they don't believe in. Newdow, an emergency room doctor in Sacramento, says he expected his lawsuit to generate controversy, but not threatening phone calls. Newdow says his daughter has been moved to a safe place. Newdow says it was wrong to require her to listen to the pledge in her second-grade class. He has a law degree and represented himself in court for the suit. He says he'll do the same thing if the case goes to the Supreme Court. Congress Reacts Angrily To Court's 'Pledge' Ruling Congress reacted angrily to the decision by a federal appeals court declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. The Senate quickly voted 99-0 on a resolution expressing its "strong disagreement" with the decision. Lawmakers didn't mince their words in denouncing the ruling. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said it was "nuts," while Sen. Byron Dorgan said those responsible for the ruling need their "heads examined." Sen. Robert Byrd called it the work of a "stupid" judge, while Sen. Christopher Bond said the Founding Fathers must be "spinning in their graves." Lawmakers also said they would push for a constitutional amendment restoring the words "under God" if the Supreme Court doesn't reverse the lower court's decision. Attorney General John Ashcroft is among those criticizing Wednesday's ruling. He said the ruling declaring the pledge unconstitutional is "directly contrary to two centuries of American tradition." Ashcroft said the Justice Department "believes in the right of Americans to pledge allegiance to their flag." He added that Justice officials are evaluating the appropriate response. On Wednesday, a federal appeals court in San Francisco declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. The court finds that it's an endorsement of religion -- and cannot be recited in schools. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 1954 act of Congress that inserted the phrase "under God" after the words "one nation" in the pledge. The court said the phrase violates the separation of church and state. The court pointed out that when Congress added the words "under God" to the pledge in 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower declared that millions of American schoolchildren would now be proclaiming their dedication to "the Almighty." The court ruling doesn't take effect for several months -- so for now, schoolchildren may continue to be required to start the day with the pledge. The battle over the pledge may be far from over. The government can now ask the court to reconsider its decision -- or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. A Justice Department lawyer said, "We are certainly considering seeking further review in the matter." In Wednesday's opinion, the court wrote that a declaration that America is "one nation under God" is just like saying "under Jesus" or even "under no God" -- and that none of those statements is neutral when it comes to religion. The case came was brought by a Sacramento, Calif., atheist who didn't want his second-grade daughter to be required to listen her class recite the Pledge of Allegiance at school. Michael Newdow sued -- and scored a big victory when a federal appeals court in San Francisco declared the pledge unconstitutional. Newdow said he's an American citizen who doesn't like his rights infringed upon by his government. He describes the pledge as a "religious idea that certain people don't agree with." Top Legal Scholar Expects Ruling To Be Overturned Some legal experts don't expect it to stand. Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe predicts Wednesday's decision will almost certainly be overturned. Tribe said it's a good bet the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse it -- unless, he said, the Ninth Circuit decides to reverse itself. Lawmakers added the words at the height of the Cold War, after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, religious leaders and others. They said the U.S. had to distinguish itself from what they regarded as godless communism.