If we must be PC - PAH

Mark Hunt

He still said that our rights are from the Creator.

The constitution never mentions the seperation of church and state. It says that congress shall pass no law respecting a religion. Meaning that there would be NO official religion.

England had an official religion, the United States does not.

If someone is offended by the word God or interperates it to mean the Judeo/Christian God, well that is their problem.

I am looking forward to Mr.Newdow's next project. Getting "In God we trust" removed from currency.

I'll keep praying for you Sal, you and Mr.Newdow.

Mark H

Dave Yates (PAH)

If we must be PC - PAH

Interesting thread below regarding the furor over the Pledge. I've always assumed, incorrectly it would seem, that in this society the majority opinions prevail. In recent years however, we seem destined to alter rules, laws or everyday speech based upon the feelings and opinions of the few, or one that takes some offense. Certainly has led to some odd moments in American history! I was most impressed by the California Doctor's level of eloquence and intelligence. I believe he has every right to speek his mind and to express a desire that his children not be subjected to things he doesn't like or agree with. Unfortunately, that also means he'll need to keep her completely isolated from society during her lifetime. We don't agree with a great deal of things in today's society too & attempt to instill enough intelligence and education into our children's heads to enable them to decide what will ultimately be right for them - without insisting that the rest of the country do as we wish or desire.

But since we are now driven into political correctness to appease the few or one, an oxymoron if ever there was one, I would respectfully suggest the Pledge be amended to include all religions known to exist within our boundaries. Might mean there would be fewer hours devoted to classes because the new Pledge will take hours to recite, but at least we'd be on the "correct" path. For the agnostics and athiests, we can include phrases that suit their beliefs too. We'll insert anything and everything to suit every last USA citizen (well, we gotta draw the line somewhere!).

Who knows. Doing this might just create an atmosphere of tolerance for others beliefs by being exposed to speaking their dieties names out loud. On second thought, let's forget the whole thing. All we'd end up doing, would be creating yet another venue in which lawyers would find ways to transfer our assets to their bank accounts.


To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Sal Santamaura1

I don't think the (temporarily) successful litigant

ever said he wanted his daughter not to be subjected to things he doesn't like or agree with in the course of general societal interaction. She certainly will be; he'd better prepare her (probably has) to deal with life and the offensive way many individuals behave. There's no constitutional protection against the offensive free speech of other individuals, nor should there be. Rather, Dr. Newdow objected to government, in a public school, presenting religion as an officially sanctioned fact -- and specific religions at that. Your humorous suggestion about amending the Pledge to include all religions known to exist (today? updated at regular intervals?) demonstrates clearly why there should be no governmental endorsment of religion at all. The only way of insuring everyone's freedom to believe or not believe whatever they please is by keeping religion out of government.

By the way, I'm not a great fan of lawyers either. Fortunately, no assets got transferred to a lawyer's bank account in this instance. Dr. Newdow, in addition to being an MD, is a lawyer. He argued the case himself, on his own time.

I really don't want to keep intruding here, but feel compelled to defend freedom when reading words that express objection to our repbulic's guarantee of it for all individuals. Please help me keep my mouth shut; to quote Dan, "Now, how 'bout them heating systems? ;-)"

Dave Yates (PAH)

Ah, but

religion has never been kept out of government. I have a picture of my Grandfather giving the opening prayer for the US Congress (he was a Presbyterian Minister).

So now we won't be allowed to sing God Bless America or intone any other phrases/songs/etc at any public functions that include a form of government or school because a doctor/lawyer (I should have seen that one coming) in California objects? Oh, I know he hasn't gone to that extreme yet, but one step at a time, eh?

He can opt out of reciting the Pledge. So can his children. He'll have his fifteen minutes and blessfully fade away into the anals (seems an appropriate phrase) of history.

Didn't waste our money or transfer anyone's assets to another's account? Are you serious? I'd venture to say that the debacle he created has wasted millions already.


To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

John@Reliable

I'm so sick about keeping everyone happy!
Lets keep it real simple, some will say simple minded.
New bumper sticker
" Majority rules,Don't like it leave" I really think all of our everyday lives would be so much better.Also voter ed.would help, I know I'm dreaming.

hr

A tough call to make on this

This is a hot topic on most online discussion lists these days.

From another contractors list I read..

The courts are bound to uphold the constitution, agreed?

1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The framers of the Constitution were pretty clear in their intent of seperation, when this was drafted, and as the FIRST admendment it must have been considered very significant.

More than one of these rights have come under test in the past few years. Like when is an assembly not peaceful? Who decides and how?

Freedom of speech? There are some things you don't want to say, even over the internet, these days with uncle sam watching so close, you may get a knock on the door!

It works, for me the way it has always been. But I'm not sure the true letter of the law is being followed, as this most recent challenge shows.

I suppose the only true resolve would be to lobby for a constitutional change.

I not real comfortable with some of the powers Congress has given law enforcement since 9/11. Are they for the better? The voteing public didn't get much of a chance for input. We lose a bit of freedom with every law added to the books.


I suspect we will see more challenges like this coming along.

hot rod

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Dave Yates (PAH)

and

insn't it odd that it took 48 years for a "scholar" to come forward to question this? Were we lacking learned men and women at that time? Since that time? Are we suddenly blessed by a blinding light of knowledge?

Would that he were not a lawyer who had moved to California so he could press forth his personal agenda in a court known for its liberal leaning. Taints the picture IMHO.



To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Sal Santamaura1

Dave, just because we haven't enforced the establishment clause

in the past doesn't mean we shouldn't begin enforcing it as soon as the judiciary develops sufficient brass ones to do so. Congress, the President, state and local governments of all kinds (and both major parties) have definitely ignored our constitutions's prohibition for a long time, and continue to do so. All those folks are elected, and most want to be re-elected, so they play to majority sentiment, even though the majority is not always right and should never rule minorities. Remember, we had government-sanctioned slavery for a long time too. It wasn't right, the practice was eliminated, and today most folks wouldn't accept that we should go back to it because someone's grandfather had slaves.

Singing of religious songs at government functions, as well as the mere existence of congressional chaplains and opening prayers, also violate the establishment clause. If you'd like to discuss waste and injustice, how about public tax money, taken from those not Jewish or Christian, under threat of imprisonment for nonpayment, used to pay the cost of those chaplains? At some point in the future all these things will also be eliminated as unconstitutional. The way politics, including Supreme Court appointments, has gone recently, I don't expect to see the Ninth Circuit ruling upheld or any other such fair and correct decisions rendered in my lifetime.

Sal Santamaura1

Dave, just because we haven't enforced the establishment clause

in the past doesn't mean we shouldn't begin enforcing it as soon as our judiciary develops sufficient brass ones to do so. Congress, the President, state and local governments of all kinds (including both major parties) have definitely ignored our constitution's prohibition for a long time, and continue to do so. All those folks are elected, and most want to be re-elected, so they play to majority sentiment, even though the majority is not always right and should never trample rights of minorities. Remember, we had government-sanctioned slavery for a long time too. It wasn't right, the practice was eliminated, and today most folks wouldn't accept that we should go back to it because someone's grandfather had slaves.

Singing of religious songs at government functions, as well as the mere existence of congressional chaplains and opening prayers, also violate the establishment clause. If you'd like to discuss waste and injustice, how about public tax money, taken from those not Jewish or Christian, under threat of imprisonment for nonpayment, used to pay the cost of those chaplains? At some point in the future all these things will also be eliminated as unconstitutional. The way politics, including Supreme Court appointments, has gone recently, I don't expect to see the Ninth Circuit ruling upheld or any other such fair and correct decisions rendered in my lifetime.

Dave Yates (PAH)

Nor

in mine hopefully. Wow, you managed quite a segway into the slavery issue. So, if I agree to utter "under God" in the Pledge I'm also in favor of slavery? When did you stop beating your wife?

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

hr

It's been questioned before

I'll bet. Just didn't get this much attention. Everyone seem a bit more jumpier these days. The press has a habit of churning things up also. Word travels at the click of a button

"The Right to keep and bear arms" I'll bet the founding farthers weren't think about full automatic weapons, nuclear warheads, and biological weapons. Is anthrax a weapon? Fumes from burning pex?
Hard to keep a document penned in 1787 in step with many of todays questions and issues.

hot rod

hot rod

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Sal Santamaura1

No, I never said that Dave. It was just a simple

analogy to illustrate the point that long term practice of a wrong the government went along with does not justify continuing it.

Dave Yates (PAH)

Ah,

but the majority do not think this was or is wrong. Sorry about the red herring, but that's the kind of logic you were intoning.

It is not possible to turn our society into some bland vanilla non-offending bubble. Not only would it be boring, it would border on being banal in its existance.

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

chuck shaw

interpretation

Like many things i feel the constitution is open to interpreation. My understanding (im not a lawyer) from an old high school class, was the seperation of church and state was ment to mean, there will be no official religion. That simple. People can read into things, many ways, and this was that persons take on it. It may meet the letter of the law, if not the intent. Just like when you open your code books. I agree, that our founding fathers probally had no idea, that what they were saying, would be so subjected to arguement. And, at that time(late 18th century) im not sure that a person, who publicly said he was an athiest, would have been alowed to argue at a town dump, never mind a court of law. In truth, we have come a long way.

JMO

Chuck Shaw

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Sal Santamaura1

No problem Dave. Also, nobody's trying

to make society non-offending. The vast majority of our daily interactions in this country have nothing to do with government. Freedom of speech is precious. I would argue just as strongly against attempted infringement on anyone's right as an individual to believe and proclaim whatever they wish. It is the insertion of religion into *government* that started this debate, and it's government that should be kept free of all religion. Outside of government, pretty much anything goes. Dan's Wall has no connection with government, and he seems to welcome all kinds of open debate here, from both those who are religious and those who aren't. Free speech at its finest.

There's an organization (with which I have no connection) called Americans United for Separation of Church and State. It's composed of people from many mainstream Christian and Jewish religions (among others). This group recognizes that the only way its members can continue to freely practice their religions is to keep our government from getting into the religion business. Therefore, it works to enforce the establishment clause. Please consider whether that might be the best approach. Thanks for listening.

Dave Yates (PAH)

As an aside........

The thrust of this argument resides upon the notion of rendering all things non-offensive. The good doctor/lawyer took offense, did he not?

My Grandfather did not charge for his services in rendering an opening prayer & judging by the rather crass behavior by many members of Congress, his prayer might have gone unanswered - or ignored! So much for having extracted one penny or more from an unsuspecting public. But I disagree whole-hartedly that monies invested by our government have gone for naught. the IRS has single-handedly led more people to religion than any other branch of government!

I am curious though. If we are to become a bland Godless society, who's book then shall we swear upon to tell the truth in a court of law? Not that any lawyers are held to that creed - they are paid to lie as they practice law. If you, the good doctor/lawyer or others who believe God has no place in our society find themselves before a court of law, to whom should they swear to tell the truth? Will we strike down the use of a Bible in these courts as well?

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Dave Yates (PAH)

Vast majority in U.S. support 'under God'

June 29, 2002 Posted: 5:28 PM EDT (2128 GMT)

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Nearly nine in 10 Americans believe the phrase "under God" should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance, and most believe it is acceptable for the government to promote religious expression, as long as no specific religion is mentioned, according to a Newsweek poll.

If only the energy devoted to screwing this up were devoted to changing things that can be changed to benefit society - such as ME's Habitat for Humanity project. We've done several HfH projects & it feels great to give back to your community. If you're not in his area, doesn't matter - the HfH folks are active in your areas too. All it takes is a few hours of your time.


To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Sal Santamaura1

The Chaplain of the U.S. House, a Roman Catholic priest,

is paid a salary of $139,000 per year. The Chaplain of the U.S. Senate receives $122,400 of our tax money each year.

The alternative to taking an oath on a bible is called affirmation. It does not involve any religious references or books, and is accepted in our courts today. It should be the only available way to begin legal testimony.

Bill Clinton

majority rule

My reading of history (in classes taken long ago) made the point that the very reason for the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) was to bolster the individual AGAINST the tyranny of the majority. That is to say: There are certain actions the government is prohibited from, majority will or not. These are in fact the Freedoms and Principles all patriotic Americans profess to hold dear. To me, the pledge of allegiance and "patriotism" are about honoring those Freedoms and Principles.

By the way, I think The Wall is an excellent place to speak of these issues because there is a certain amount of mutual respect that has grown up among those who frequent this place and that makes a real exchange more easily possible.

Bill

hr

The seperation works well

Both ways
I REALLTY do not want the Government messing in the affairs of my church, or anybodies. I don't want them telling me how, when, and where I can practice my beliefs. Taxes, rules of how and where we meet, etc, etc. I got all the government I need and I can afford already They need to stay out of the religion regulation business, as they agreed to do when the drafted the Constitution and Amendments.
On the same token I would prefer to not see churches involved in the everyday goings on of government. Anymore than I want the government telling me how much I can charge for my goods and services
It works fine the way it was set up by the originally, I think.

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Mark Hunt

Mr. Newdow's Mark H

original complaint was the phrase "In God we trust" on our money.

He said that in an interview I watched. He later changed his plan and went after the pledge because it was easier.

He said that too.

He also stated that he would seek to have "In God we trust" removed from US currency.

The interview that he stated these things was on "The O'Reilly Factor" on the Fox news channel.

And Sal, we are not governed by the Declaration and I know what Mr.Jefferson believed. But none of that changes the fact that he referred to the Creator as the source of our rights.

Mark H

Dave Yates (PAH)

affirmation

But if you enforce your iron will that this is the "only way" that should be acceptable, does it not step on the rights of those who believe differently?

Why not rail against the millions wasted by lobyists? There's the real deal and belly of the beast. The amounts you've mentioned don't even make a faint blip on the radar screen of wasted monies.

I don't much care if they give the church, Catholic or otherwise, some money to be on call. God knows the heathens inside the beltway could use a moral compass!

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Sal Santamaura1

And Jefferson later explained the phrase (which he coined)

"a wall of separation between church and state," saying "the legitimate powers of our government reach actions only and not opinions." Personal religious views are just that - personal. Our government has no right to promote religion or interfere with private beliefs.

Dave Yates (PAH)

Whoa there

they sure as heckfire do have the right, nay - the responsibility to interfere with private beliefs that break laws - such as weird religions that promote murder or sacrifice of humans.

Personal religious views, or the lack thereof, are at the forefront here in this argument. No specific religions were promoted in the Pledge.

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

hr

A month into the convention

little progress was made. Benjamin Franklin moved to start each session with a prayer, and secure the services of one or more of the clergy of Philadelphia. His motion recieved a second.
But Hamilton and others worried that, however laudable the practice of prayer might be, to commence at this date would convey a sence of desperation.
The proposition died. Franklin remarked with some wonder, and at the bottom of his speech noted "The convention, except for three or four persons thought prayer unnecessary.
This is where the whole idea started.

from "The First American" The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin

I not sure where Robert Yates, an attorney, the 55th delegate, alphabetically speaking, stood on that issue

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Sal Santamaura1

It's not an \"iron will,\" just an opinion

that oaths on bibles are unconstitutional. By the way, such oaths mean nothing to those who aren't Jewish or Christian, while affirmations offer assurances to everyone.

You've launched several more red herrings, and I bit on the oath question. However, your last statement makes clear that you are not really unhappy with the Ninth Circuit ruling, but instead don't agree with the first part of the First Amendment. The redress you seek must be accomplished by a constitutional amendment. Please feel free to work hard for one that makes this a theocracy. I'll work just as hard to defeat the effort.

Sal Santamaura1

Read it again Dave.

No private beliefs break laws. The crimes you mention are illegal actions, prohibition of which falls under the legitimate powers of goverment.

The Pledge most definitely promotes Judaism and Christianity by referring to their God.

Dave Yates (PAH)

Missed by a mile!

You are not nearly as intuitive as you think!

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Dave Yates (PAH)

Uncle Bob?!?

There was a Yates on the Arizona too. Seemed odd standing on that memorial in Hawaaii and wondering if we were somehow related. Being there was a very moving and yes, religious moment for us all. Standing next to those obviously Japanese and sharing tears seemed somehow right. The folly of men, eh?

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Dave Yates (PAH)

Ah, now you're

gonna go and ruin my disguise. Here's why your earlier post doesn't ring true. Theocratic - no way. My interpretation of that phrase "under God" does not, in my opinion, mean Judaism or Christianity, but rather that it affirms a belief in some higher being or authority. I don't care one whit who or what that is to anyone else & for all I care the good doctor/lawyer can insert his own name there if that floats his boat.

But that's the beauty of a truly free thinking society. The freedom to interpret that as we see fit. Not as you see fit and not as the doctor/lawyer sees fit either. Same goes for your interpretation of who said what for whatever reason. They're not here to be cross examined, so we must each take from that what we will and be satisfied that it is ok for others to believe what was said, or written, is at odds with our take on the matter.


To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

hr

Sal has done his homework, Dave

I have been clicking back and forth to several web pages on the Constitution and Amendments. What Sal speaks is well explained at these sites, some of which are run by various Government offices.

Is the wording "Under God" unconstitutional? Probably is. But the polls show an overwhelming percentage (80-90!) of respondants are fine with the way it is regardless of the legality. Works for me too.

hot rod

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Dave Yates (PAH)

could be

HR, but it's all subject to interpretation. Explained by the government? The same dudes who run the IRS? Get outta here!

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

canuckDale

Parallax

Without prejudice nor politics.

From here....What is the worst harm?

When I was wee, and in grade school, we gave the Lord's Prayer and sang "God Save The Queen".

The Queen song, thanks to Mr. Trudeau, turned into "Oh Canada".

Today...there is no Lord's Prayer. Little Oh Canada in schools. Because it may 'offend' some Canadian citizens. Most are not offended because the homage simply means - 'my' God and 'this' community in which I live and love.

My US freinds.....your sense of patriotism, community and belief in God(s) got you through 9-11. And I am very impressed by your resolve. Would you be in the same shape now if prayers, God, country, community, understanding and tolerance were not part of everyday activities....be they activities of children, teens, adults or senoirs?

I suspect a somewhat less cohesiveness would have occurred if a similiar tragedy occurred here!

Enjoy your freedom.
A prayer does not compromise mine. Even if it's your prayer, my God hears it too.

My 2 cents..1 cent Canadian I guess.

John (jcg)

my 2 cents

I don’t see this wealthy Doctor/Lawyer parting with his money. Our currency all has ‘In God We Trust” written upon it, I would think that this would be offensive to him also and he would want to cleanse himself of the evil paper. Or is the dollar the only thing he really worships.

jcg


To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Unknown

What a debate

Very interesting that once again the rights of an individual have come to bear and carry so much weight. I guess this is what freedom is all about. I as an ordained pentecostal minister could really get into a debate on this subject, however I choose to only say this, IF there is a God in heaven (my belief that there is aside) then all the pledges do not change the fact that he is there. It is up to us to train our children in the way we think is right and then they must make a choice. This God we discuss gave us a free will even he will not tamper with it. Back in the sixties a woman by the name of Marilyn Madeline O'Hare was instrumental in getting prayer removed from our schools. Things have sure gone down hill since then in the schools just something to think about. She influenced a lot of people but not her own children and grandchildren, other than one of her children they all became born again Christians ( I had two of her grand children in my Sunday School class) it seems that no matter how hard we try this God seems to just have His way. Boy would I like to get into a discussion about seperation of church and state Oh well I am going to behave myself. God Bless America.... WHOOPS there I went and did it. By the way the folks in the Middle East love it when we fight about whether there is a God or not. I always challenge people about God this way ...you owe it to yourself to find out the truth - you shall know the truth and the truth will make you free- so look up into the sky and say if you are really up there reveal yourself to me then look out...I did that forty years ago and I have never been the same since.

Dave Yates (PAH)

neighbors & friends

I agree that 9/11 tested us sorely. While faith, prayer and beliefs helped pull many of us through those troubling times (they're not over yet, IMHO), it was the support of great friends and neighbors such as Canada that gave us much of the support we so desperately needed. I believe we would return the favor in a heartbeat. Especially if the Molsens was chilled!

Just as you saw all peoples from all manner of backgrounds pull together and become unified as one, I am certain your fellow citizens would do the same.

Those are times when silly debates and percieved differences are forgotten.

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

steve gates

sheriff Murph

where are you? Do you all know how hard this has been for me to stay off my soapbox?

I believe in God!

I hate how are taxes are spent(abortion ect.).

So much of what's happening today is destroing right from wrong!

I could go on and on and on and on.................



Murph, How bout those heating question?

Online Sheriff \"Murph\"

biting my tounge ....

on this one. these folks would not like my replies, as on a few of these topics, I do not feel that I could keep such a polite response as did quite a few people did!!!


lets talk boilers

Dave Yates (PAH)

well, that tears it!

Murph being the shy & reserved type(G). Ah'm shocked!

No sweat brother, this is a touchy subject & it's tough to be cool headed when the subject can so easily offend your sensibilities. But we live in a society that allows people to freely speak their minds (thank God) and that's what sparked this raging inferno.

It's actually a good thing (thanks Martha) to have had the doctor/lawyer speak out. We got to see lots of politicians proselytizing, which requires a strong constitution (pun intended) and exercising their rights of free speech.

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Mad Dog

A real gem of satirical wit

bravo PAH...you just hammered one home... Mad Dog

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Dave Yates (PAH)

In the park, but no homerun!

Thanks & it's great to see you back on The Wall! Don't discount Sal. He's one smart cookie & a great guy to boot. I enjoyed our exchange & it shows that it is OK in this country to have differing views while remaining civil.
As for the doctor/lawyer? I feel sorry for him & his family. I suspect their lives will be the worse for his having been so outrageously outspoken. But he's got that fleeting bit of fame I think he was seeking.
PAH

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"