You made stu's point point you dummy -he has ONE. One can't help but wonder why you need so many aliases?? Could it be because you have been banned SEVERAL times lol
But they arenât. They may well be subject to the opinion of the reader, but not for their meaning. The words mean what they are commonly understood to mean. The Court knows what they mean and uses a common meaning of words.John loans Jim $1000 but Jim never needs to repay. Jim's opinion of the meaning of the word loan is gift. You have not shown how those 10 words can be subjected to an opinion which offers a different meaning to what they hold, without either contradiction, irrelevancy or absurdity, Seriously, do you know how words work and how they are subject to common meaning? How will you have any understanding of how the law works if you do not understand the words and their meanings as the Court intends them to be understood and most other people intend them to be understood? Yes they are. You are. Saying they are subject to opinion only for the reader of them to find their meaning, is challenging their actual meaning. That I would say is a dishonest argument, if for no other reason than itâs an obvious absurdity. John finds it absurd that Jim dishonestly intends a loan is a gift. No, that was your question and not what the argument was about. What do they actually mean - would be a good enough question to start. It might be a little more honest to accept the Framers meant the words they wrote, to mean what their words say. And as for the "spirit behind the Establishment Clause" how else should the spirit behind the clause be understood other than by the actual words and their commonly understood meaning. As for any other âspiritâ...well...the word God does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. That indicates a certain absence of a certain spirit and for good reasons. Then both my definition and the courts are up for scrutiny arenât they? But not so for you. The Courtâs opinion is right by default because you defer to it, because you agree with it. Your argument is an appeal to authority whether or not the authority might be right or wrong. I state the words of the Establishment Clause are incontrovertible. You state they are not because.....the Court says so, even though the Court says no such thing. The words of the First mean what they say, if they don't do that, then show me yourself where they don't, without replacing them, ignoring them or attributing your own personal and private meaning to them.
This does not show how The Pledge is Consistent With the Establishment Clause. It just says it is. But this is not an argument about the constitutionality of patriotic expressions containing references to God. It is about the constitutionality of Congress passing law respecting an establishment of religion. It just so happens that the argument is Congress unconstitutionally passed an unconstitutional law into a patriotic expression which previously had no wording passed in law, and which previously did not contain any references to God ,and in which the original writer specifically omitted references to God and in which the public recitation of the Pledge contained no reference to God or religion. Furthermore, the 9th Court has ruled the Pledge as it stands is unconstitutional. This is not about the Declaration of Independence or about references to [a] The Deity* or about singing officially espoused anthems. It is about the action of Congress passing a law respecting an establishment of religion. Under God is respecting an establishment of religion because God is nothing else but a word which connects only with establishments of religion and thereby respects an establishment of religion. It is not observance, readings or recitations I am arguing about. It is the very action of Congress which passed a law respecting (in regard of or in relation to) an establishment (an order or system or institution) of religion( expressed belief in a deity). That is what is in question. Children should be free to say prayers or not, say the Pledge or not, read the Declaration of Independence or not, but Congress should not itself pass law which is respecting an establishment of religion. It has done. That's all. What's so difficult to grasp? This opinion - of the Justice's opinion - is invalid to this argument. It is also incorrect. The word God is not without religious purpose or meaning. If that is the case, the words Christ, Allah and The Almighty, St Paul, The Virgin Mary, are without religious purpose or meaning too. So are the words used in this âopinion of an opinionâ link of yours, The Deity, Supreme Being are now meaningless words to the Court. Your link contains utter twaddle. I am not arguing about religious activities which it is stated Justice Brennan explains â⦠do not have religious meaning due to the fact that such activities have been so interwoven into the fabric of our societyâ . I am talking of an act of Congress. Since when did an act of Congress by the passing of Unconstitutional law become described as âcertain activities interwoven into the fabric of our societyâ. If itâs unconstitutional for long enough then itâs not unconstitutional , its just "woven into the fabric of society" ? 5 years, fifty years, 100 years.. then it becomes no longer unconstitutional? Disregarding all the many and various objectors there are to the unconstitutional law. It just becomes constitutional even though it isnât. Great law that is. Not.
The Christmas creche is nothing to do with invoking something by law. The City is not Congress. They did not invoke a law to insert a creche into a public pledge. Red herring. And as for the writers of this apology to what would be bad law from their own analysis, they make themselves look very suspect and wanting in objectivity. Let's look again at this in particular⦠"This Court recognized our nationâs history contains numerous official references to vows or invocations of divine guidance in deliberations and pronouncements of the founding fathers. Id. at 675. Examples include references to God in the national motto (âIn God We Trustâ) and in the Pledge (âone nation under Godâ). Id. at 676. Now just when the hell did the Founding Fathers divinely guide and deliberate pronouncements of "one nation under God" when it was written only in the 1950's. This is the kind of misleading opinion which you like to defer to? But this is all diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue. It is not about other references, it is about the specific action by Congress of making law of the kind which the Constitution states they should not.
"But they arenât. They may well be subject to the opinion of the reader, but not for their meaning. The words mean what they are commonly understood to mean. The Court knows what they mean and uses a common meaning of words.John loans Jim $1000 but Jim never needs to repay. Jim's opinion of the meaning of the word loan is gift. You have not shown how those 10 words can be subjected to an opinion which offers a different meaning to what they hold, without either contradiction, irrelevancy or absurdity, If what you say is true, that there is no room for opinion on what those 10 words mean, what the concept means, what the intentions of the Framers were, what is your explanation for the difference of opinion? The High Court does know what they mean, and they have ruled that the pledge is not in violation of the Establishment Clause as cited in their ruling on Elk Grove. According to the common meaning of the words in question, the pledge is not a prayer of religion, and its voluntary use not an establishment of religion. The two words "under God" do not constitute the establishment nor practice of religion in the context and manner in which they are used in the pledge. The only absurdity I see is how someone fails to understand that most simple concept.
The words of the First mean what they say, if they don't do that, then show me yourself where they don't, without replacing them, ignoring them or attributing your own personal and private meaning to them. You are attributing your own personal and private meaning to the words, why don't you see that? God=religion is your statement, and it is a false statement. God does not equal religion, God is not the equivalent of religion. You are arguing from the assumption that God is the product of religion, rather than existing separate from religion. You have no proof that that is true. Religion is worship of God, every reasonable person knows that. A parrot repeating the word God is not practicing religion. A computer repeating the word God because it was programmed is not practicing religion, and someone saying "under God" in the context of the pledge is not practicing religion. If a gun was held to you head, and you were told to say the current pledge daily for the rest of your life, would you suddenly become a religious man found to be practicing religion? Nonsense. The religiousness of the word God comes from someone's feelings and faith in God, their reason for invoking the name of God, not from mindless repetition. Any expert in religion will confirm that. Don't you get it that you are not the final authority on the English language, the meaning of the words as they were written, as they should be interpreted, etc.? So your argument is that you are right without opinion at the foundation of your righteousness, and the court's opinion is wrong. Too bad you ain't the judge. Unless you can do more than simply spew opinion, opinion unsupported by the court, unsupported by legal tests, case law, common understanding of what religions is, professional understanding of what religion is (people who make their living by the teaching and practice of religion don't on the majority agree with you) then I don't see where this argument goes anywhere. Your disdain and lack of respect for the opinion of the court, lacking legal expertise to counter it, sure looks to me like a sore loser. Oh well, wouldn't be the first time someone disagreed with the court, but continued to think they were right anyway. In the final analysis, there is no absolute right or wrong here, just opinion. I think you have made a very weak case to support your opinion.
"One nation under God blah blah bah bahahha" It means just what it says..and should be removed! period! get God off MY money and out my govt!!!! i am an intelligent adult;i have no need for fairy tales!