Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

SKILMATIC said:

What?!!! When did I say that? Do you even know how to disect a sentence? The constitution as it is written states that there should be no law passed that would incorporate the establishment of religion meaning its properties and denominations. No where does that imply to God or spirits or man for that point.

Click to expand...

Yes, I can disect a sentence, but that is of little consequence concerning the First, as it's meaning is clear enough. I agree with what you are saying here, but not with what was previously stated.

"I understand but it is just giving respect to the establishment of a religion meaning the place of worship. You do know what an establishment is right? Its a place. Well a place(establishment) of a religion is the place in which they gather and worship. So its in respect to those places(establishments) of worship. Again its just referring to religions not anything else."

An establishment is not always a place, nor did the use of the word in the First, mean a place, which is what I pointed out.

In regard to the word "respecting," whether it connotes honoring, concerning, or regarding, the clause means that Congress shall make no law on that subject, which is also what I pointed out.

Looks like you missed my post so I'll just move it right...here.

Originally Posted by SKILMATIC
I understand but it is just giving respect to the establishment of a religion meaning the place of worship. You do know what an establishment is right? Its a place. Well a place(establishment) of a religion is the place in which they gather and worship. So its in respect to those places(establishments) of worship. Again its just referring to religions not anything else.

Click to expand...

OK. Time to pull out the dictionary. (dictionary.com, that is)

es·tab·lish·ment Audio pronunciation of "establishment" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-stblsh-mnt)
n.

1.
1. The act of establishing.
2. The condition or fact of being established.
2. Something established, as:
1. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
2. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
3. An established church.
4. A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
5. A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.
3. often Establishment An established social order, as:
1. A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the.
2. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the.

As you can see this word goes beyond "place of worship". If the framers wanted to say "place of worship" or "church" they would have said so. Insetad they carefully chose the word "establishment" and not just because it's fancy.

No but we had Godand prayer, mind you, in our schools. So gotcha there.

Click to expand...

What do you mean that we "had" God and prayer in schools? We still do. Looks like I found a way out.

I feel the same way. Why dont you all get out on the battlefield and see how patriotic you get? True patriots fight for their rights and secure them. Look, you cant tell me or preach to me about patriotism for I say it like Patrick Henry does. Yes, I would die before I get enslaved by any regime. I think debating on what we look at while we recite the pledge is meaningless. I could say it looking at a dumpster for all I care. The words mean the same regardless. Saying the pledge infront of a constitution isnt nothing different IMO.

Click to expand...

I don't even think you have to go as far to fight, but to stand up for what our Constitution says in order to be a patriotic American. That can certainly include fighting for it. The words start off with "I pledge allegiance, to the flag" I was saying that if we should make a pledge to something, it should be to our Constitution, not a flag (even though ours is very nice).

C.J. said:

Yes, I can disect a sentence, but that is of little consequence concerning the First, as it's meaning is clear enough. I agree with what you are saying here, but not with what was previously stated.

"I understand but it is just giving respect to the establishment of a religion meaning the place of worship. You do know what an establishment is right? Its a place. Well a place(establishment) of a religion is the place in which they gather and worship. So its in respect to those places(establishments) of worship. Again its just referring to religions not anything else."

An establishment is not always a place, nor did the use of the word in the First, mean a place, which is what I pointed out.

In regard to the word "respecting," whether it connotes honoring, concerning, or regarding, the clause means that Congress shall make no law on that subject, which is also what I pointed out.

Click to expand...

Ok then if congress cannot make no law concerning it then they didnt. Becasue under God has nothing to do with establishments of religion. God is a spirit not a religion. Do you at least understand that? And an establishment is formerly and mostly known as a place. Please show me otherwise. And I will be more abliged to argue with you on this point.

I love the arguments so keep them coming.

SKILMATIC said:

No its not as for even columbusite has staated the constitution word for word which states the establishments of religion not the phrases of religion. So your wrong already. Shall I debacle you too? I really hate to do this to a moderator. But you asked for it

Click to expand...

Oh no, please don't debacle me! Anyways, you are wrong.

Give me a link to a ammendment or a bill or something where it says that word for word.

Click to expand...

How about this:

"The Board of Regents as amicus curiae, the respondents and intervenors all concede the religious nature of prayer, but seek to distinguish this prayer because it is based on our spiritual heritage.

The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a government program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with this contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as part of a religious program carried on by government."

Majority opinion, Engel v. Vitale.

There it is for you in black and white. This case is almost IDENTICAL to Engel v. Vitale, the only reason it hasn't been decided in Summary Judgment is because the interest groups allied in favor of keeping "under god" in the pledge are so powerful. The fact of the matter is, the courts decided this matter over 40 years ago, and it will meet the same fate.

The truth(fact) is that I can pray at my school and hold discussions of religious conatations and debates. I can recite partsof the Bible if I wanted to for it is in some books and pamphlets in public school and college in History courses. I would appreciate it if you brought facts to the table not opinions and rhetoric.

Click to expand...

You're right, you can. But what you cannot do is mandate that that prayer be recited each day.

This is bologna due to the fact being before every meeting in the continental congress they started the day by holding prayer. So now tell me that prayer had nothing to do with the foundations and in the making of the constitution. Even prayer isnt unconstitutional. Now if they make you say prayer then it becomes unconstitutional. Remember this is public school not gov. school. So in public places people are allowed to pray wherever they sit and read whatever they would like. So a public place where people meet to learn and teach is no different.

Click to expand...

Uh, because you say that a Supreme Court precedent is bologna makes it so? What the founders did has no bearing on what the constitution says. The founders supported slavery, and suffrage for white, property holding males only. I don't see people using that as an argument against the 15th and 19th amendments...

I think you'll be suprised to find out that SKILMATIC stepped up and debacled all their arguments. I have debated this topic before in debate club at my local college and debated this very topic against 3 prominent professors and won 7-3 and 1 was neutral out of 10 panelists.]

Click to expand...

Well, that's cute that you "debacled" the arguments. If only you had the courts, history, precedent, or logic on your side, maybe you could have "debated" them properly.

SKILMATIC said:

I think you'll be suprised to find out that SKILMATIC stepped up and debacled all their arguments. I have debated this topic before in debate club at my local college and debated this very topic against 3 prominent professors and won 7-3 and 1 was neutral out of 10 panelists.

Click to expand...

I think it's best you don't name your college. With you beating out 3 professors (prominent ones, at that) you wouldn't want to sully your college's reputation. Of course, it is very possible (read: probable) that the panelists were even more misinformed than yourself.

Columbusite said:

RightatNYU,

One more thing, any ideas for raising public awareness of our Constitution? We, as a country, are terribly (dangerously?) ignorant of the Constituiton as you can see in this thread alone. (Maybe this should be another thread...)

Click to expand...

http://www.nyu.edu/ofp/constitution_day.html

In December, 2004, Senator Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat and the United States Congress unofficial constitutional scholar, offered an amendment in an attempt to increase knowledge among primary, secondary, and post-secondary students about the Constitution. Congress approved this amendment and the law now requires institutions to raise awareness of the U.S. Constitution around the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution on September 17.

Click to expand...

As of this year, it's mandated that every single federally funded institution hold a Constitution Day. I think it's one of the best ideas (albeit an unfunded mandate) to come out of Congress in the past 10 years.

Columbusite said:

Looks like you missed my post so I'll just move it right...here.





OK. Time to pull out the dictionary. (dictionary.com, that is)

es·tab·lish·ment Audio pronunciation of "establishment" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-stblsh-mnt)
n.

1.
1. The act of establishing.
2. The condition or fact of being established.
2. Something established, as:
1. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
2. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
3. An established church.
4. A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
5. A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.
3. often Establishment An established social order, as:
1. A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the.
2. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the.

As you can see this word goes beyond "place of worship". If the framers wanted to say "place of worship" or "church" they would have said so. Insetad they carefully chose the word "establishment" and not just because it's fancy.



What do you mean that we "had" God and prayer in schools? We still do. Looks like I found a way out.




I don't even think you have to go as far to fight, but to stand up for what our Constitution says in order to be a patriotic American. That can certainly include fighting for it. The words start off with "I pledge allegiance, to the flag" I was saying that if we should make a pledge to something, it should be to our Constitution, not a flag (even though ours is very nice).

Click to expand...

I absolutely love you for bringing that out casue now I can debacle you again. I love when people bring out the dictionary casue you cannot refute it. Ok here we go. When establishment is put infront or after a DO that further describes its meaning such as religion it then falls under definition first number 3 nothing else.

Now if the constitution had said congress shall pass no law in respecting the establishments of the Navy then it would fall under definition the thrid number 2 down nothing else. It si in the foundations of the English language that we can dissect and see what the words truly mean. So therefore the rest of the definitions of that word are meaningless casue they are out of the constext in which the word is being used.

SKILMATIC said:

Ok then if congress cannot make no law concerning it then they didnt. Becasue under God has nothing to do with establishments of religion. God is a spirit not a religion. Do you at least understand that? And an establishment is formerly and mostly known as a place. Please show me otherwise. And I will be more abliged to argue with you on this point.

I love the arguments so keep them coming.

Click to expand...

YOU show me how God is not connected to religion. The only one that comes close that I can think of is the God of Deism. Although I am a Deist myself, it wouldn't be right or constitutional for the government to favor It.

SKILMATIC said:

Ok then if congress cannot make no law concerning it then they didnt. Becasue under God has nothing to do with establishments of religion. God is a spirit not a religion. Do you at least understand that? And an establishment is formerly and mostly known as a place. Please show me otherwise. And I will be more abliged to argue with you on this point.

I love the arguments so keep them coming.

Click to expand...

You are woefully ignorant of commonly held knowledge.

First off, the Establishment clause has nothing to do with "establishment" in terms of place, it is solely meant to discuss the establishment, endorsement, or support of any religion by the government.

"Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause, of the First Amendment, both of which are operative against the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Engel v. Vitale (such a great case)

Thus, whether "God" is a religion or a spirit is irrelevant.

RightatNYU said:

Oh no, please don't debacle me! Anyways, you are wrong.



How about this:

"The Board of Regents as amicus curiae, the respondents and intervenors all concede the religious nature of prayer, but seek to distinguish this prayer because it is based on our spiritual heritage.

The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a government program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with this contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as part of a religious program carried on by government."

Majority opinion, Engel v. Vitale.

There it is for you in black and white. This case is almost IDENTICAL to Engel v. Vitale, the only reason it hasn't been decided in Summary Judgment is because the interest groups allied in favor of keeping "under god" in the pledge are so powerful. The fact of the matter is, the courts decided this matter over 40 years ago, and it will meet the same fate.



You're right, you can. But what you cannot do is mandate that that prayer be recited each day.



Uh, because you say that a Supreme Court precedent is bologna makes it so? What the founders did has no bearing on what the constitution says. The founders supported slavery, and suffrage for white, property holding males only. I don't see people using that as an argument against the 15th and 19th amendments...



Well, that's cute that you "debacled" the arguments. If only you had the courts, history, precedent, or logic on your side, maybe you could have "debated" them properly.

Click to expand...

Well heres what you forgot to point out. Congress ruled that a mandated prayer was unconstitutional but we are still allowed to pray in school. But what you forget was that the pledge isnt mandated by the federal gov or local gov. therefore it is decisively constitutional. Now if it was mandated as I have said before then it would be unconstotutional becasue I feel that no one has the right to make you sat anythung so therefore just recite the pledge however you feel like it. There you go, debacled. Any questions on what you just said for your argument? I will be happy to interpret them for you:2razz:

SKILMATIC said:

I absolutely love you for bringing that out casue now I can debacle you again. I love when people bring out the dictionary casue you cannot refute it. Ok here we go. When establishment is put infront or after a DO that further describes its meaning such as religion it then falls under definition first number 3 nothing else.

Now if the constitution had said congress shall pass no law in respecting the establishments of the Navy then it would fall under definition the thrid number 2 down nothing else. It si in the foundations of the English language that we can dissect and see what the words truly mean. So therefore the rest of the definitions of that word are meaningless casue they are out of the constext in which the word is being used.

Click to expand...

Oh my god, are you kidding me? You are completely and utterly misinterpreting the Constitution.

Ask 1000 Constitutional scholars if what you're claiming is true, and 1000 will tell you no.

I've heard of people interpreting the Constitution differently, but this is something else.

It has NOTHING to do with places of religion in that sense of the word establishment.

SKILMATIC said:

Well heres what you forgot to point out. Congress ruled that a mandated prayer was unconstitutional but we are still allowed to pray in school. But what you forget was that the pledge isnt mandated by the federal gov or local gov. therefore it is decisively constitutional. Now if it was mandated as I have said before then it would be unconstotutional becasue I feel that no one has the right to make you sat anythung so therefore just recite the pledge however you feel like it. There you go, debacled. Any questions on what you just said for your argument? I will be happy to interpret them for you:2razz:

Click to expand...

Wow.

I'll try to type a little slower for you.

The recitation of the pledge is mandated by local and state school boards, exactly the same as in Engel v. Vitale. While RECITATION of the pledge by individual students is not required, recitation by the school IS. This is a clear violation of the Establishment clause.

So, by your own words, because recitation is mandated, you agree that it is unconstitutional. I'm glad we cleared that up.

SKILMATIC said:

Well heres what you forgot to point out. Congress ruled that a mandated prayer was unconstitutional but we are still allowed to pray in school. But what you forget was that the pledge isnt mandated by the federal gov or local gov. therefore it is decisively constitutional. Now if it was mandated as I have said before then it would be unconstotutional becasue I feel that no one has the right to make you sat anythung so therefore just recite the pledge however you feel like it. There you go, debacled. Any questions on what you just said for your argument? I will be happy to interpret them for you:2razz:

Click to expand...

In addition, by virtue of the Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, the bill of rights was made binding on state and local governments, so the protections carry over.

SKILMATIC said:

I absolutely love you for bringing that out casue now I can debacle you again. I love when people bring out the dictionary casue you cannot refute it. Ok here we go. When establishment is put infront or after a DO that further describes its meaning such as religion it then falls under definition first number 3 nothing else.

Now if the constitution had said congress shall pass no law in respecting the establishments of the Navy then it would fall under definition the thrid number 2 down nothing else. It si in the foundations of the English language that we can dissect and see what the words truly mean. So therefore the rest of the definitions of that word are meaningless casue they are out of the constext in which the word is being used.

Click to expand...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" It's a shame you can't appreciate the beauty of this, the reason we have such a free society. If I were you, I wouldn't put too much stock in your knowledge of the English language. I guess all these experts on the Constitution are lacking your (in)ability to interpret this.

RightatNYU said:

http://www.nyu.edu/ofp/constitution_day.html



As of this year, it's mandated that every single federally funded institution hold a Constitution Day. I think it's one of the best ideas (albeit an unfunded mandate) to come out of Congress in the past 10 years.

Click to expand...

Aww, man. Sept 22? Well, there's always next year. Next year there will be the National Day of Reason on May 4th. I'll have to be sure to celebrate both.

You are woefully ignorant of commonly held knowledge.

Click to expand...

This from a moderator?

Ask 1000 Constitutional scholars if what you're claiming is true, and 1000 will tell you no.

Click to expand...

WELL its kinda funny you mentioned that casue I am one. :lol: Well mabe the rest 999 will go along with you on that one. But remember if you are going to take a poll you must do so failry and calculate the standard deviation accordingly. So what makes you a scholar on the constitution? Have u ever done any extensive research on it? Do you even know what our first constitution was? Or how about this, tell me the first 2 parties that existed in america? Just a little pop quiz if you dont mind participating?

I've heard of people interpreting the Constitution differently, but this is something else.

Click to expand...

Yes your right its called reading thoroughly and having a fond common knowledge of what the nglish language means. Most cannot and haven't done this. Which btw the panelists were scholars as well of the constitution and or early and modern american history. So in actuality they knew more than I.

It has NOTHING to do with places of religion in that sense of the word establishment.

Click to expand...

Then why is it right next to the word religion and the only definiton in regards to the dictionary states a place of religion when in regards to the word establishment? Kinda funny isnt it? Please look back at the dictionary post I encourage you. You know I ma handling a debate with both of you. And its getting to the point that its going in circles. Dont you 2 have anything else to debate with? Cause this is the same argument I had with an individual earlier on the thread.

SKILMATIC said:

You know I ma handling a debate with both of you. And its getting to the point that its going in circles. Dont you 2 have anything else to debate with? Cause this is the same argument I had with an individual earlier on the thread.

Click to expand...

You know what, I think I'm going to have to give up. You make about as much sense as a Brothers Quay film without LSD: none.

SKILMATIC said:

This from a moderator?

Click to expand...

Yes?

WELL its kinda funny you mentioned that casue I am one. :lol: Well mabe the rest 999 will go along with you on that one. But remember if you are going to take a poll you must do so failry and calculate the standard deviation accordingly. So what makes you a scholar on the constitution? Have u ever done any extensive research on it? Do you even know what our first constitution was? Or how about this, tell me the first 2 parties that existed in america? Just a little pop quiz if you dont mind participating?

Click to expand...

This is amusing. You think because you throw around a phrase like "standard deviation" that it makes you a scholar on the Constitution. Extensive research that I've done? Well, I'm taking my 3rd and 4th classes on the Constitution now, took Con Law last summer, and am gearing up for law school with a seminar taught by the former dean of NYU's law school and current president of the university. What do you mean "what our first constitution was?" You mean the Articles of Confederation, which weren't actually a constitution? And the first two parties? Federalist and Dem/Rep. Why don't you try asking me things I didn't learn in 11th grade civics.

How about this: As a fellow constitutional scholar, what do you think about the prospects for the future court based on Roberts' endorsement of historical precedent, but refusal to unconditionally accept stare decisis? And in a completely different vein, what do you think about the insistence of some parties on the right to an unsullied reputation even in the wake of NYT v US and NYT v Sullivan? Or, in yet another vein, what solution do you propose in cases where the 6th amendment and the 1st contradict each other, such as in cases where confidential sources of reporters could exonerate defendents?

Yes your right its called reading thoroughly and having a fond common knowledge of what the nglish language means. Most cannot and haven't done this. Which btw the panelists were scholars as well of the constitution and or early and modern american history. So in actuality they knew more than I.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that they knew more than you.

Then why is it right next to the word religion and the only definiton in regards to the dictionary states a place of religion when in regards to the word establishment? Kinda funny isnt it? Please look back at the dictionary post I encourage you. You know I ma handling a debate with both of you. And its getting to the point that its going in circles. Dont you 2 have anything else to debate with? Cause this is the same argument I had with an individual earlier on the thread.

Click to expand...

And he probably gave up out of frustration too.

YOU show me how God is not connected to religion. The only one that comes close that I can think of is the God of Deism. Although I am a Deist myself, it wouldn't be right or constitutional for the government to favor It.

Click to expand...

Again I never said this and neither is it even apart of this argument. Like I said before God is a spirit not a religion or a establishment of it. God himself isnt even an establishment. "Respecting an establishment of religion" where in that does it imply to God? They couldbe talking about Buddhists for crying out loud who have no God, :lol: . Religions are religions not people or spirirts although they worship under them.

I beleive the constitution is implying that it shoudnt give waiver to a single religion as a mandate in any of its gov. Becasue if you know history the problem wasnt becasue religions but A religion. It was the fact that gov had given mandate to one powerful religion that had no other competition to even out the tyranny. Now in our case becasue the founding fathers knew that there were many religions here becasue thats why this country got started in the forst place casue of freedom of religion. They knew that they couldnt implement one religon in gov becasue 1)they knew that it wouldnt be fair to those other religions and beleifs, 2)but that it will also end up being like all those regimes in early europe that were controlled by religion. This couldnt happen. So in that was the constitution written and very clearly defined as the different establishments or types of religions couldnt be favored. Now all this was predicated on religion not god. God is a interpreted thing. If someone just says god without another word around it what would you think? Well of course you would think your god whoever that may be. If you are an atheist then of course there is no god. But in your case becasue its not mandated you have the choice to not say it. And the god beleivers have every right to think of what god they want. Therefore it is constitutional it doesnt breach the constitution while still being fair to the public of all religious genres.

Remember the constitution is interprable in many different ways. And becasue of this is why there are debates. Rightfully so. However, no one can totally refute a definition of it unless its unrerasonable of course.

RightatNYU said:

And he probably gave up out of frustration too.

Click to expand...

I have had to go back and explain the same things over and over. You can see he still doesn't get the problem with the pledge. I already pointed out it is the government endorsement that is a problem (he used endorse and enforce as though they were interchangeable), not forced recitation by students. Basically nothing is getting through. Well, one big thing. He went from 'no separation of chruch and state' to his current position, but I don't think he's willing to make another big change in his beliefs like that. Not anytime soon, at least. (How'd you like my joke? I was going for something Dennis Millerish. So if you don't get it, good.:2razz: )

SKILMATIC said:

Again I never said this and neither is it even apart of this argument. Like I said before God is a spirit not a religion or a establishment of it. God himself isnt even an establishment. "Respecting an establishment of religion" where in that does it imply to God? They couldbe talking about Buddhists for crying out loud who have no God, :lol: . Religions are religions not people or spirirts although they worship under them.

I beleive the constitution is implying that it shoudnt give waiver to a single religion as a mandate in any of its gov. Becasue if you know history the problem wasnt becasue religions but A religion. It was the fact that gov had given mandate to one powerful religion that had no other competition to even out the tyranny. Now in our case becasue the founding fathers knew that there were many religions here becasue thats why this country got started in the forst place casue of freedom of religion. They knew that they couldnt implement one religon in gov becasue 1)they knew that it wouldnt be fair to those other religions and beleifs, 2)but that it will also end up being like all those regimes in early europe that were controlled by religion. This couldnt happen. So in that was the constitution written and very clearly defined as the different establishments or types of religions couldnt be favored. Now all this was predicated on religion not god. God is a interpreted thing. If someone just says god without another word around it what would you think? Well of course you would think your god whoever that may be. If you are an atheist then of course there is no god. But in your case becasue its not mandated you have the choice to not say it. And the god beleivers have every right to think of what god they want. Therefore it is constitutional it doesnt breach the constitution while still being fair to the public of all religious genres.

Remember the constitution is interprable in many different ways. And becasue of this is why there are debates. Rightfully so. However, no one can totally refute a definition of it unless its unrerasonable of course.

Click to expand...

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to each of practice religion."

Reynolds v. Supra

A) The pledge, as currently read, is a religious activity, as agreed by the Supreme Court.
B) Because the reading of it is mandated by school boards, that is time during the teaching day that is allotted to a religions activity.
C) Schools are funded by tax revenue.
D) Therefore, tax revenue is directly levied to support a religious activity.
E) That's unconstitutional.

You're right, many interpretations of the Constitution are allowed. EXCEPT in cases where the court has already enumerated exactly what specific clauses mean. That precludes debate.

Columbusite said:

I have had to go back and explain the same things over and over. You can see he still doesn't get the problem with the pledge. I already pointed out it is the government endorsement that is a problem (he used endorse and enforce as though they were interchangeable), not forced recitation by students. Basically nothing is getting through. Well, one big thing. He went from 'no separation of chruch and state' to his current position, but I don't think he's willing to make another big change in his beliefs like that. Not anytime soon, at least. (How'd you like my joke? I was going for something Dennis Millerish. So if you don't get it, good.:2razz: )

Click to expand...

Hahaha, it seemed a bit out there. I was like "I don't even know who Dennis Quay is!?!"

nice work.:2razz:

This is amusing. You think because you throw around a phrase like "standard deviation" that it makes you a scholar on the Constitution.

Click to expand...

:lol: Actually that has nothing to do with the constitution. It was a mathematical term. I guess you arent a math guy either, but thats ok. I will still work on you.

How about this: As a fellow constitutional scholar, what do you think about the prospects for the future court based on Roberts' endorsement of historical precedent, but refusal to unconditionally accept stare decisis?

Click to expand...

:lol: Why does this not suprise me? I knew you, being a liberal, were going to bring up John Roberts in this sometime or another. First off this has nothing to do with the constitutional matter of prayer in that him performing his judicial duties as a supreme court judge by upholding the law as its very difinitevely defined much like the constitution is. Alot of mental disorders are unwiavered in anything that Roberts exclaims as if they never listened to his answers. But you know what? The thing is it doesnt matter since the vote is predominantly conservative he is already admitted anyway. :2wave: Is this enough, or do I have to write you a book? Which btw I am not going to do anyway casue its getting late.

And in a completely different vein, what do you think about the insistence of some parties on the right to an unsullied reputation even in the wake of NYT v US and NYT v Sullivan?

Click to expand...

IS THAT THE MONTGOMERY ALABAMA ONE? Its been a long while so bare with me on this one. This was like 3 yrs ago. The trial was held somewhere in the mid 1960's and it was about the civil rights movement. Sullivan was a commissioner and it was Brennan who was the justice. Lets see what else do I remember? And they awarded somethig like a .5million bucks? Thats seriously all I remember from that case. IM not a law guy I am a history guy but I also study the constitution and mostly just the constitution. I do poli sci for fun and History is my hobby(well war stuff).

Or, in yet another vein, what solution do you propose in cases where the 6th amendment and the 1st contradict each other, such as in cases where confidential sources of reporters could exonerate defendents?

Click to expand...

You mean the point that the first claims that congress shall not abridge freedom of speech in the press, but in the 6th it claims that press shall have no influence or a biased view in that trial? Which in a way limits speech. Yeah I have heard argiments both ways for that as well. Again I am not going to write a book. But your much abliged to for me if you want.

I don't doubt that they knew more than you

Well at least we agree on something.

And he probably gave up out of frustration too.

Click to expand...

Well not really. I just read repetatively what the constitution says word for word in regarding this matter then exlained what it meant very deligently. I broke it down in regards of English and dissection therof. And I broke it down to them as far as the context in which they wrote it and why they wrote what they did. Because in no shape or form doen it imply God at all being unconstitutional. Just religions which were the threat. God isnt a threat its the religions who consistently have a problem with using God as their reasoning. And not to mention as you said before that there needs to be a mandate for it to be illegal. So there you go you just solved your own argument. If you dont ahve anything else then I think I ma going to bed. I am tired. But it was good debating with you.

RightatNYU said:

Hahaha, it seemed a bit out there. I was like "I don't even know who Dennis Quay is!?!"

nice work.:2razz:

Click to expand...

Well in his post he proclaims I had a problem with the difference between 2 very different words. But infact I didnt. I told him to define them for me. Which when he finally did he got all upset after I debacled him again. Also I have always beena huge supporter of seperation of chirch and state but God isnt a religion and has no ties with such. Its the religions who use God as their reasoning. God has nothing to do with it. God is a spirit. How many times do I have to tell you.

You know the comment can go both ways that nothing is getting through. But when it all comes down to it. Does the constitution ever mention one thing about God whether it should be extradited or included? No so therefore the argument can go both ways. Religion doesnt equal God. There arent the same.


Due to the pledge not being mandated then the pledge is constitutional as is. Just like since prayer is mandated in a public school(which is a gov endorsed establishment) we can still pray however and whenever we want. Just like the pledge even though its endorsed by Gov we can say it however and whever we like. So theres no argument. Its ok as is. Any questions?

Btw the NYT is garbage. You actually beleive that crap? Let me guess, you love and beleive everything you hear from the washington post? If you say yes, I am quitting this argument becasue I refuse to debate against mental disorders its a waiste of time.