Sense Breaking Out?
June 27th, 2002 - 2:32 pm
Just heard on Fox — Ninth Circuit Judge Whatsisname has just stayed his own ruling.
Check Drudge or somewhere for the story. I’ve got some errands to run.
UPDATE: Here’s the story from AP.
Right. After spinning its hands for the past few weeks, the official “AMISH TECH SUPPORT DOOMSDAY CLOCK” is now resting comfortably at 4:27 AM.
*AFTER* Doomsday. I do believe that this entire country has lost its mind.
My cocktail clock says it’s happy hour.
Lemme guess -
The guy starts reading Sullivan and Goldberg, and decides “Ummmm, waita minute, this really IS God’s Gift To The Republicans. Oops”.
Duh.
Jeebus, this really inspires confidence in this mullethead.
The stay is almost automatic in a case like this where its obvious that the decision will either be considered en banc or appealed to the US S.Ct.
Judge Napolitano on Fox agrees with the previous poster. He says that this is a standard courtesy in the case of a ruling that materially effects an important question of law.
I’ve decided to come around. You’re absolutely right, Steve, and I’m sorry that I posted that unseemly rant earlier.
In fact, I’ve tried to make some amends on my own (vastly-inferior) blogging site, by suggesting a new avenue we bloggers can take to show our support.
Or they must have realised that it would be impossible to get paid anymore after this verdict, because they just made money unconstitutional: see here why…
The problem is, the whining that many claim is being carried on by those who support the ruling, is in fact being carried on with much more ferocity by those who feel that there should be a pledge of allegiance recited in God’s name.
A child is being taught in public schools, there should be no reason that they are forced to protest or recite the pledge period.
The theme of the U.S. is not majority opinion, but individual sovereignty, and one should not be forced to endure such obstruction in a tax supported arena.
It’s not a matter of simple offense or opinion, it’s matter of individual liberty, and if someone wants to recite the pledge then they may do so on their own time.
The question is, not why should someone be forced to miss out on the opportunity to recite the pledge, but why should somoene be forced to endure the recitation of the pledge period?
This is not someone simply walking up to another person and freely speak to them about God or patriotism, and the recipient having the right to stroll away.
As for the currency issue, I think it’s quite obvious that someone having to endure a pledge to allegiance of this country, and one that is essentially to God as well, is much worse than someone having to use money that has a relative phrase printed on it.
One can choose to acknowledge the statement or not. However, they are not being forced to have their day obstructed so that others can make that pledge.
You may claim it is of litle consequence, but then I wonder why it is such a serious issue that it be maintained.
But, yes, it I think it’s ridiculous that we are forced to endure so many governmental invokations of God in any realm. I find it troubling when our president feels it necessary to assert that our rights were given to us by God, and that others should, in so many words, just deal with it.
It’s archaic, and I’m not convinced that religion really makes people moral anyway.
I certainly don’t believe that the political philosophies conjured by our founders was contingent on Christianity, for it was the restrictions of Christian intepretation that aided in the founding anyhow.
It may attract those who desire to be moral, or those who are inherently moral, but people will persue and rationalize ill behavior no matter what God or doctrine they claim to shutter beneath.
I disagree with Richard rather strongly but not out of any religious fervor.
Rather, whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance is good or bad policy, this simply shouldn’t be a Constitutional issue. The Constitution should be the framework of our polity, it should not be the document we go to like a Ouiji board to answer every question from “Can I pray in school?” to “Where did the other sock in this pair go?”
Our society is being gravely damaged by courts that think their view of the “best” policy – whether the Pledge, abortion law, or state law on suicide – is what the constitution mandates.
I believe if a child wants to pray in school than go right ahead, on their own time of course. However, the school system should not be deisgnating a mandatory time for students to recite a pledge of allegiance with blatant religious overtones to it.
When you designate such a time in a public school system for someting that explicitly incorporates a religious pledge, then it certainly becomes a Constitutional issue.
Again, if a child or parent wants to have a prayer recited on their own time, whether be in lunch or recess, then go right ahread, but the school should not be designating a particular time for that to occur, and a time that other non-practicing students are forced to endure.
The whole idea is merely intended social engineering anyway, since the reason that “Under God” was originally placed into the pledge, and thus incoprorated into public school systems, is because it was to teach that very principle.
That is clearly unconstitutional, and no one has been able to demonstrate how it isn’t.
The best we’ve gotten is that it is mere tradition, and should be accepted as such, when in fact the real tradition of the pledge incorporated no invokation of God and was created by a socialist devotee.
So, tradition and how good one feels about the pledge and the use of God in it is irrelevant.
This is public school where children are suppossed to be taught things other than allegiance to a country under God. If you want that taught to your child then send them to a private school.
The Consitution should be the framework of law, and individual rights.
You may see this as some insignifcant issue, but when I witness the obvious intent of the Pledge, which is baltantly a form of social engineering, then it is clearly a Constitutional matter.
The point is, if the use of God really means so little, then why is there such extreme outcries for its inclusion?
It should have never been included in the first place.
The role of our government should not be to teach allegiance to a nation under God.