|
Godles Americans PAC? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Miss Bliss |
| What about the re-emerging movement to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance? |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Miss Bliss
What about the re-emerging movement to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance? |
Hah, that doesn't really bother me lol.
It will be resolved by the courts I guess. |
|
|
| Miss Bliss |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
All I ask is that our government respect religious freedom and the separation of church and state as it has for about 200 years (until this recent administration)... |
The funny thing is that Dubya doesn't seem to realize that he's screwing himself up the ass with his religious supporting. Almost every president in our history (hmm, maybe EVERY) has said "God bless America" at one point or another, but every president has been ambivalent/ambiguous/MODERATE on his religious views, not bringing them into the spotlight and not letting them take over his campaign and term. The key to winning a broad base of supporters is being moderate, and the first principle of politics is that a political leader will strive to keep himself in office in any way he can -- hence by winning a broad network of supporters. Dubya is too conservative, too supportive of everything religious. Most Republicans are. Democrats are going to float down the same river, too. Vote for the Miss Bliss party. :thepirate |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Miss Bliss
What about the re-emerging movement to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance? |
Considering the "under God" statement's original intent back in the 1950's was to indoctrinate children in the classroom against Communism, I really don't have much of a problem with folks wanting to take it out now. Furthermore, it does go against those beliefs of an atheist, or those beliefs of those who believe in more than 1 deity.
It is an assumption of a particular religion, or group of religions, and is therefore a religious doctrine, which clearly and logically should not be placed in the secular classroom. |
|
|
| PHALPAX |
| Any one know when the Supreme Court is going to rule on the pledge case? |
|
|
| nic01445 |
| i wouldn't be surprised they ruled in favor of the "slogan." Everyone seems to believe that the U.S. was founded on "christian principles" anyway, so why do something that would offend the fouding fathers? :p |
|
|
| PHALPAX |
| quote: | Originally posted by nic01445
i wouldn't be surprised they ruled in favor of the "slogan." Everyone seems to believe that the U.S. was founded on "christian principles" anyway, so why do something that would offend the fouding fathers? :p |
It would, and the Supreme Court would be entering a (at least) grey area of the establishment clause saying such a thing, i.e. the endorsment test. |
|
|
| arctic |
Is it true that Bush has been trying to stack the SC bench with conservatives who are likely to tow the line with his conservative agenda? That's the impression I’ve got from the Americans that I’ve chatted to of late. Anyone able to elaborate on how your judges are appointed?
Either way, from my (admittedly limited) knowledge of the US constitution, the pledge does seem to be against the first amendment. Either way, it wasn't even in the pledge until the 50's when they wanted to denounce 'godless communism', and it's fairly evident that it's referring to the Christian (and Jewish, for that matter) god, which leaves atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, Hindus, Buddhists, pagans and so on out in the cold. Whenever religion and politics mix, it always gets ugly. You'd think that people would have enough sense to keep the two apart, essentially to avoid situations like this. |
|
|
| PHALPAX |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
Is it true that Bush has been trying to stack the SC bench with conservatives who are likely to tow the line with his conservative agenda? That's the impression I’ve got from the Americans that I’ve chatted to of late. Anyone able to elaborate on how your judges are appointed? |
Presidents appointing judges with their political views has been going on since the 1700s, this is nothing new. CLinton put in some rather liberal justices durong his reign (Ginsburg and Breyer). Regan was the most notorious for putting up some conservatives on the bench....Kennedy, Scalia, O'Connor for example.
Supreme Court judges are appointed by the president BUT they have to be approved by the U.S. Senate through testimonies and interviews. The Senate then votes on whether the nominee will get the spot. Bush cant place judges, only nominate them. ;)
| quote: | | Either way, from my (admittedly limited) knowledge of the US constitution, the pledge does seem to be against the first amendment. Either way, it wasn't even in the pledge until the 50's when they wanted to denounce 'godless communism', and it's fairly evident that it's referring to the Christian (and Jewish, for that matter) god, which leaves atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, Hindus, Buddhists, pagans and so on out in the cold. Whenever religion and politics mix, it always gets ugly. You'd think that people would have enough sense to keep the two apart, essentially to avoid situations like this. |
The 1st amendment is not at issue here, its something called the establishment clause in the U.S. Constitution-- which states that gov't cannot establish or favor religion in any way. Theres also something within the establishment clause called the "endorsment test" which was a test created in the Lemon case. The endorsment test says that if the gov't in any way promotes or inhibits religion it is therefore considered to be unconstitutional. It has been argued that the pledge promotes religion in a gov't sponsored manner, hence it being unconstitutional. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
Is it true that Bush has been trying to stack the SC bench with conservatives who are likely to tow the line with his conservative agenda? That's the impression I’ve got from the Americans that I’ve chatted to of late. Anyone able to elaborate on how your judges are appointed? |
Additionally Supreme Court justices can only be replaced when they step down. As of now, none of the supreme court justices have stepped down so Bush has not had the ability to appoint any new conservative justices.
What he HAS done is appoint 2 judges, blocked by congress, to one of the circuit court of appeals ... 5th, 9th I'm not sure which one ... at any rate, only one of the fillibusters was actually meritous in my opinion. And although he went over congresses' head, due to some weird congress on recess clause, the confirmations still must get congressional approval some time in 2005 otherwise the judges are removed from the bench.
Therefore, typically there is a fair balance on the SC so long as the nation is balanced between conservative and liberal. So don't believe everything an uneducated American may be saying to you ;) |
|
|
| nic01445 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Additionally Supreme Court justices can only be replaced when they step down. |
...or die ;) |
|
|
| Miss Bliss |
| quote: | Originally posted by PHALPAX
Supreme Court judges are appointed by the president BUT they have to be approved by the U.S. Senate through testimonies and interviews. The Senate then votes on whether the nominee will get the spot. Bush cant place judges, only nominate them. ;)
|
Yea but a Senate that supports the president will probably approve his judge nominations. As of now we have a Republican-controlled Senate and Bush is a Republican also. But all that may change this year! :eyespop: And it doesn't look like any judges are going to step down/croak anytime soon. |
|
|
|
|
