 |
|
« White Phosphorus: A Professional Opinion | Main | Must-Reads from Goldstein » November 14, 2005
Might I Suggest A Compromise? (UPDATED with Dissent from Bill. Also, Pillowfighting)
Posted by Hubris The Establishment Clause? Separation of church and state? Yep, I dig 'em. But stuff like this? Cheese 'n rice. I'd like to humbly propose an alternative to the drawn-out litigation that will likely ensue over this issue in the years to come: On all of our coins and currency, let's replace "In God We Trust" with "Michael Newdow Is A Real Dipshit." Such a message would avoid the God issue, but still reflect the traditional values of our great nation. Bill adds: I disagree. While I think that Newdow's latest effort regarding currency takes his campaign against religious belief expressed by the state too far and contextually undermines his other case against the Pledge of Allegiance (practically and politically, though not when each distinct case is viewed inside the theoretical vacuum of legal analysis), I think that Hubris and Goldstein are overly dismissive, if not totally wrong. My comment left at PW (slightly edited): Hubris adds: (Bill's additional comment is below the fold) I disagree with you disagreeing, natch. Actually, I'm not sure if you're actually disagreeing with me, or just Jeff's post. I'm speaking to the currency issue only, not to the pledge. I avoid the pledge issue because it makes my brain hurt. In the context of the "In God We Trust" thing, I stand by my well-reasoned "dipshit" argument. Oh, let's just cut to the chase--pillow fight! Bill Adds: Well, Hubris linked to Goldstein's post, which goes after not only the currency issue, but the expanded context of the pledge case as well. That being said, as long as Hubris promises to keep his pants on, I am willing to settle this with a pillow fight. Hubris adds: That being said, as long as Hubris promises to keep his pants on... Too late! Original comment still below the fold: 1. Goldstein says:that any ruling otherwise would lead to precisely the type of legal action Newdow is now taking—ridding any governmental entity or institution of any vestigial traditional or cultural or ceremonial religion. Seems pretty logical to me ... Posted by Hubris at November 14, 2005 01:56 PM | TrackBack (4) Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsGayyyyy. Posted by: Beck at November 14, 2005 09:36 PM Show me how the phrase "...under God..." involves "declaring fealty to God..." fe·al·ty n. pl. fe·al·ties The only thing we pledge allegiance to is the "Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands." The phrase "under God" is describing the Republic as traditionally viewed in our founding documents and comes under the same "ceremonial deism" attributed to money. The drive to expunge the slightest reference to our historic religious roots from public life does more to expose the intolerance of the antagonists than any possible public service performed by these efforts. We were established as a Nation whose people were endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights, remember? Posted by: ArcherWeps at November 14, 2005 10:41 PM Show me how the phrase "...under God..." involves "declaring fealty to God..." Now you want to play semantics with my use of the word "fealty?" The phrase "under God" in a loyalty pledge is a religious declaration, an endorsment, on its face. The phrase "under God" is describing the Republic as traditionally viewed in our founding documents and comes under the same "ceremonial deism" attributed to money. This is historical revisionism. The phrase was added 50-odd years ago, to explicitly assert the USA as a theistic nation in contrast the the Soviet Union. This intent is specifically unconstitutional, by a very rational interpretation. The legislature overstepped its authority, not merely recognizing or tolerating tradition, rather establishing a religious component to a public oath. Would you tolerate "under Jesus?" "Under Allah?" In a pledge recited by your kid? Even if such additions were popularly mandated? Why or why not? Posted by: Bill from INDC at November 14, 2005 10:49 PM In the strictest sense, Michael Newdow's in the right. Still, I think there's an old saying about sleeping dogs. --|PW|-- Posted by: pennywit at November 15, 2005 12:47 AM A different argument with its own validity. But it's an interesting exercise to see how different beliefs are afforded different status. If a Jewish minority (and there are less Jews than atheists) had to sit through "under Jesus" in a school pledge, the public opinion on the matter - as well as the legal interpretations of the case - could be quite different. Posted by: Bill from INDC at November 15, 2005 06:25 AM Ahhh, ceremonial deism. People sure do fight prett hard to keep a phrase that apparently doesn't mean very much. The "ceremonial deism" defense strikes me as about as intellectually honest as "ID isn't creationism." Posted by: andy at November 15, 2005 07:45 AM Ahhh, ceremonial deism. People sure do fight prett hard to keep a phrase that apparently doesn't mean very much. Yes, I've made that argument before - about the pledge. The "ceremonial deism" defense strikes me as about as intellectually honest as "ID isn't creationism." Well, I'm intellectually honest and largely on your side, yet can see how having a grandfathered in "In God We Trust" as a passive, legacy expression on money would fit the description of "ceremonial deism," which is something the courts seem to recognize. And I don't think it's an illogical premise, though religious organizations using it while fighting so hard for something ostensibly meaningless is disingenuous. It's important to pick battles. I believe that Newdow is making a grave miscalculation here, politically udermining his much stronger case against the pledge - a case that gives him a shot in Hell at winning. The money case? No chance. Case in point for shooting himself in the foot with this latest effort: Goldstein's argument. Posted by: Bill from INDC at November 15, 2005 08:12 AM Semantics? I suppose. You say the pledge declares "fealty to God" yet fail to address the point that the only pledge in the Pledge is to the Flag and to the Republic. My point still remains -- the "under God" part describes the Republic essentially as it was described by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence. ...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God... ...that they are endowed by their Creator... ...appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world...It is "historical revisionism" to expunge the friendliness to God found in our own historical documents and traditions and to demand their removal. I acknowledge the relatively recent insertion of the "under God" into the Pledge yet I still find it completely consistent with our Declaration. Ditto the "In God We Trust" on the coins -- the history of the phrase is also rooted in the religious nature of our country and citizens. While we may not be as tolerant of these sentiments today we nonetheless respect the decisions of our forebears and carry on our traditions. Would you tolerate "under Jesus?" "Under Allah?" In a pledge recited by your kid? Even if such additions were popularly mandated? Why or why not? I hope you read no animosity towards you or your viewpoints in my comments. My beef is with the drumbeat to "revise" our religious history out of existence. Posted by: ArcherWeps at November 15, 2005 06:25 PM yet fail to address the point that the only pledge in the Pledge is to the Flag and to the Republic. My point still remains -- the "under God" part describes the Republic essentially as it was described by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence. Irrelevant given the context that the original pledge was altered in the 50's; it stood without "under God" longer than it's had it. And by the way, it wasn't written by "the Founding fathers," it was written by a socialist schoolteacher. So essentially you support a "revision" under the auspices of strongly arguing against historical revision. This is ironic. No animosity here either. Posted by: Bill from INDC at November 15, 2005 07:18 PM We recommend you to visit excellent amature site. qY0ptan0x Posted by: amature at July 14, 2006 03:09 PM We recommend you to visit excellent babe of the day site. qY0ptan0x Posted by: babe of the day at July 14, 2006 09:06 PM We recommend you to visit excellent blue book site. qY0ptan0x Posted by: blue book at July 15, 2006 01:45 AM We recommend you to visit excellent guns site. qY0ptan0x Posted by: guns at July 16, 2006 09:09 AM http://www.ringtones-dir.com/get/ ringtones site free. ringtones site free, ringtones site, Free nokia ringtones here. From website . Posted by: ringtones free at August 12, 2006 03:29 AM Dating Dnline, Online Dating,Singles clubFree Online Dating,dating with Yahoo! PersonalsDating Sites,free online dating siteDating Services,Alliance-Inter Dating ServicesDating Tips,tips and advice free dating Dating Direct,Google PR Troubles and the Lycos Dating ServiceYahoo Dating,Partner mit YahooDating Personals,Christian Dating,Hotmail Largest Online Dating WebsiteDating Websites,Dating Sims,Dating Sim is a type of computer gameOnline Sims Dating Games,msn gay chat roomsInternet Dating,Great Expectations Dating,Plentyoffish Dating,Gay Dating,Free gay personals Nz Dating,Herpes Dating,Herpes Picture DatingMarried Dating,Free Dating Chat Sites, Posted by: dating online at September 12, 2006 01:19 AM child, Child Abuse,Child Support,Child Development, Child Labor,Child Care,Child Protective Services,Destinys Child,Child Molesters,Child Psychology, Child Custody,Child Birth,Child Labor Laws,Child Abuse And Neglect,Child Stars,Bangbro Com Your Child,Child Health Plus,Child Obesity,The Golden Child,Mothers Day Poem From Child,Mother And Child, Posted by: child at September 12, 2006 01:24 AM ionolsen26 So interesting site, thanks! www_4_2 Posted by: timoshka at October 22, 2006 09:55 PM i cannot agree with u Posted by: Cell Phone Accessory at October 27, 2006 01:31 PM The best videos on the net, funny videos, crazy videos, fights, plain stupidity, extreme stunts, sexy girls, hot celebs and more! Posted by: jason white at November 5, 2006 03:38 AM nice site Posted by: healthcare at November 9, 2006 12:54 AM cool site Posted by: Women at November 9, 2006 12:54 AM best site Posted by: clickpoint at November 9, 2006 12:55 AM good site Posted by: Health at November 9, 2006 12:55 AM best site Posted by: Computers at November 14, 2006 07:08 PM Posted by: Movies at November 15, 2006 12:12 PM 5b75cd069521 Great work sex in the office sex in the office Posted by: sex in the office at November 24, 2006 04:06 AM 6ec78baa03a0 Hello! short url short url Posted by: short url at December 20, 2006 06:29 AM ilwc jhsel xksocadp wkatie sekud tusfyrxcg fyvraid Posted by: avcmtpsz kbxs at February 19, 2007 09:32 PM |
Feed Me, Seymour
bill *at* indcjournal *dot* com
Support Our Advertisers
Search
Archives
June 2008May 2008 April 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004
Extras
PDARSD Atom RSS 2.0 RSS 1.0
Credits
Our Blogroll
|