The Cellar - View Single Post - US Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional

vsp · 06-29-2002, 08:54 AM

And we're well on our way already.

Within 24 hours of the original Pledge decision, the Supreme Court decided that my tax dollars can be used to take kids out of public (secular) schools and, er, pay to RE-EDUCATE them in religious institutions. Some humor value will pop up when someone tries to use vouchers to pay for admission to (let's say) a Wiccan, Scientologist or openly atheist school, but it's still a chilling precedent.

Our Chimp-in-Chief responded to the 9th Circuit's decision with this jaw-dropping statement: "We need common sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God, and those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench." Say WHAT? It's not as if Bush had planned to fill the court with atheists and agnostics prior to this statement, but this is an absolutely bald-faced declaration that there _will be_ a religious litmus test applied to all of Bush's court nominees. If you don't buy into Judeo-Christianity, or feel that separation of church and state is a good idea, you have no place in America's court system and are unfit to uphold the law -- or so says the President.

And, as the quote several messages above restated, the President's daddy isn't so sure that non-believers should even be citizens of this nation, much less in a position of authority to weigh and measure SECULAR law. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

And where is the loyal opposition, the Democratic response to Republicans trying to inextricably bind together God (that is, their God) and patriotism? Robert Byrd declares the lead judge in the decision an "atheist lawyer" and says that said judge had better never come under his Congressional scrutiny, "because he will be remembered." Nice threat, there. Joe Lieberman, a former Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate, calls for a Constitutional Amendment to permanently cement the words into place in the Pledge. The Senate lines up to deliver a unanimous vote denouncing a CORRECT legal decision, and in the House's version, only three Dems had the courage to vote "no."

No, I didn't expect the Democrats to rise up as one and support the Pledge's revision. It's a meaningless issue at its core, but one that can be replayed four hundred thousand times during this election season. Stating the actual facts and laws involved instead of screaming "ME TOO!" would start a blizzard of faxes, emails, death threats and public mockery. But there's a big difference between failure to support the decision and OPEN RIDICULE of its underlying principles. Democrats pushed each other out of the way to be the first to face the camera and shout "The decision is ridiculous and wrong." Ninety-nine senators, 99% of the House and 99% of the media pundits shouted as one that yes, this IS a Christian Nation, and yes, the Judeo-Christian God IS the foundation for our system of laws, and anyone who believes otherwise can go sit out in the hall because they're clearly out of their minds.

I repeat: Say WHAT?

Democratic leadership (and much of the media) mocked those who defected to vote Green in 2000, calling Nader's assertion that "there isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans" ridiculous. Well, while it's not true on all issues, exactly how are non-Christian Democrats supposed to look at this rush to join the Republicans at the pulpit (which, if you listened to Lieberman on the campaign trail, didn't start this week) and NOT feel the least bit disenfranchised?

06-29-2002, 08:54 AM	#9
vsp Syndrome of a Down Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: West Chester Posts: 1,367	And we're well on our way already. Within 24 hours of the original Pledge decision, the Supreme Court decided that my tax dollars can be used to take kids out of public (secular) schools and, er, pay to RE-EDUCATE them in religious institutions. Some humor value will pop up when someone tries to use vouchers to pay for admission to (let's say) a Wiccan, Scientologist or openly atheist school, but it's still a chilling precedent. Our Chimp-in-Chief responded to the 9th Circuit's decision with this jaw-dropping statement: "We need common sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God, and those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench." Say WHAT? It's not as if Bush had planned to fill the court with atheists and agnostics prior to this statement, but this is an absolutely bald-faced declaration that there _will be_ a religious litmus test applied to all of Bush's court nominees. If you don't buy into Judeo-Christianity, or feel that separation of church and state is a good idea, you have no place in America's court system and are unfit to uphold the law -- or so says the President. And, as the quote several messages above restated, the President's daddy isn't so sure that non-believers should even be citizens of this nation, much less in a position of authority to weigh and measure SECULAR law. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. And where is the loyal opposition, the Democratic response to Republicans trying to inextricably bind together God (that is, their God) and patriotism? Robert Byrd declares the lead judge in the decision an "atheist lawyer" and says that said judge had better never come under his Congressional scrutiny, "because he will be remembered." Nice threat, there. Joe Lieberman, a former Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate, calls for a Constitutional Amendment to permanently cement the words into place in the Pledge. The Senate lines up to deliver a unanimous vote denouncing a CORRECT legal decision, and in the House's version, only three Dems had the courage to vote "no." No, I didn't expect the Democrats to rise up as one and support the Pledge's revision. It's a meaningless issue at its core, but one that can be replayed four hundred thousand times during this election season. Stating the actual facts and laws involved instead of screaming "ME TOO!" would start a blizzard of faxes, emails, death threats and public mockery. But there's a big difference between failure to support the decision and OPEN RIDICULE of its underlying principles. Democrats pushed each other out of the way to be the first to face the camera and shout "The decision is ridiculous and wrong." Ninety-nine senators, 99% of the House and 99% of the media pundits shouted as one that yes, this IS a Christian Nation, and yes, the Judeo-Christian God IS the foundation for our system of laws, and anyone who believes otherwise can go sit out in the hall because they're clearly out of their minds. I repeat: Say WHAT? Democratic leadership (and much of the media) mocked those who defected to vote Green in 2000, calling Nader's assertion that "there isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans" ridiculous. Well, while it's not true on all issues, exactly how are non-Christian Democrats supposed to look at this rush to join the Republicans at the pulpit (which, if you listened to Lieberman on the campaign trail, didn't start this week) and NOT feel the least bit disenfranchised? Last edited by vsp; 06-29-2002 at 08:57 AM.