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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (52724)	7/8/2002 6:14:00 PM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

In a legal sense I believe the words "under God" represent the highest good in a metaphorical way. The mere use of the word does not promote a belief, but an ideal. This can be proven by the use of the word as an expletive by those who are certainly not invoking a deity. * * *

To: Lane3 who wrote (52724)	7/8/2002 6:33:14 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I might understand it better if it was not put as simply. I think it would be inappropriate to include relgious music at a federal government awards ceremony but I also think it would be inappropriate to make it a matter of a federal lawsuit. At least you did provide an example. I personally can not find a reason to object to gospel numbers in offical government business that would not also be a reason to object to Islamic prayers, or song in honor of Thor. I think a good deal of our difference here is simply the fact that I would not hold the majority to a higher standard simply because it is a majority. This idea doesn't just apply to establishment issues. If something is ok as part of government business it should be ok for those expressing the majority or the minority view. If it is rather a clear violation of the constitution then IMO it should not matter that if it is supported by the majority or only a minority. In fact I would grant more leeway to a majority if the constitutional issue is unclear. If the constitutional issue is unclear then factors like tradition, the will of the majority, and my opinion of the practical results of an action become important to me. I think the practical result of this decision will just be more fighting about religious issues. The tradition of saying "under God" is a relatively short one, and not a very important one, but it is still there so respect for tradition tilts against outlawing the pledge. I think the majority would support the inclusion of "under God", or at least oppose a court decision banning recital of the pledge with those words. So considerations of democracy, tradition, and practical results, as well as a general opposition to the extent that issues are now decided by courts would lead me to be against the decision. It would be easier to win my support for a court striking down a law or government mandate as unconstitutional then it is to win my support for the court itself mandating or forbiding activity directly. If the court had said that the state and public schools or school districts can not mandate the recital of the pledge with the word's "under god" I would have supported the decision, but I don't support the actual decision that was handed down by the court. I would not have opposed the school district or school deciding not to recite the pledge or to recite the pledge without "under God" for the very reasons the court decided not to allow such recitials, I just would require a clearer constitutional violation before I would support getting the federal courts involved. I would support the court striking down laws which unjustly discriminate against race, religion, or sex, have some problems with the courts ordering the government to eliminate potential differences in impact on different groups of a law that is not racially based, and I have a lot of problem when a court gets very specific about what the federal, or a state or local government must do in order to achieve the end of non-discrimination and equal oportunity, if the mandates go beyond eliminating specific biased laws or regulations or policies. Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (52724)	7/9/2002 11:45:12 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

The definition of establishment is actually pretty clear, and goes beyond favoritism. An established church is one sponsored by the government. It is an official church, as Anglicanism in Great Britain, Orthodoxy in Russia, or Buddhism in Nepal. It is doubtful that occasional favoritism towards non- denominational Christianity, reflecting the bent of the majority, qualifies as establishment. It is certainly true, according to the Supreme Court, that Christmas displays may be sponsored by a municipality if they are either secularized (Santa and elves) or have various religious symbols intermixed (a Menorah near a creche, for example). It is also true that religious expression is generally considered acceptable if it serves a secular purpose. Thus, high school choruses can sing religious music, since religious works are an essential part of the repertoire. The one way that government can be out of line when it falls so far short of establishment is when it can be accused of forcing the violation of conscience, which inhibits the free exercise of the individual's religion. The question is, does exempting participation suffice to cure the problem. Generally, for example, allowing Jehovah's Witnesses and atheists a simple affirmation in court is considered sufficient, rather than wholly altering custom. In the case of school prayer, the decision was made that children were placed under exorbitant pressure when excused from prayer, and therefore the dilemma could only be cured by banning prayer. In the case of the pledge, it may suffice to stand silent at the relevant part, or it may not. In any case, that is the issue, properly understood.......