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.

Politics : The Palestinian Hoax -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (246)	7/1/2002 6:36:11 AM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3467

3 points 1) from the article in the NYT: "Professor Chemerinsky cautioned that it was possible to read too much into reversal rates. "The opinions written by conservatives on the Ninth Circuit are just as likely to be overturned as opinions by liberals," he said. "When you're dealing with hard questions, a reversal rate does not mean the court of appeals was wrong and the Supreme Court was right. It means the Supreme Court got the last word."" One can read the article in many ways. 2)"of course all middle easterners entering this country should be profiled, were the September 11th hijackers Norwegian? Chinese? Polish? well, how about middle eastern, heck it's only common sense....." Just as in WW2 for the Japanese but not the Germans or Italians. 3) Are you for registering all right wing whites after the Oklahoma bombing? 4) from NYT 27 june; excerpt: "FROM THE OPINION By Judge Goodwin In the context of the pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation, "under God" is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation "under God" is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the republic. Rather, the phrase "one nation under God" in the context of the pledge is normative. To recite the pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and — since 1954 — monotheism. The text of the official pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God. A profession that we are a nation "under God" is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation "under Jesus," a nation "under Vishnu," a nation "under Zeus," or a nation "under no god," because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion. "The government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion." Furthermore, the school district's practice of teacher-led recitation of the pledge aims to inculcate in students a respect for the ideals set forth in the pledge, and thus amounts to state endorsements of these ideals. Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation, of the current form of the pledge. . . ."