Activist Judges - California Of Course

View Poll Results: Which Firewall do you use ?

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • Sygate

    6 15.00%
  • Zone Alarm

    7 17.50%
  • Outpost

    1 2.50%
  • Tiny

    0 0%
  • Kerio

    1 2.50%
  • Norton

    1 2.50%
  • Checkpoint

    1 2.50%
  • BlackIce

    1 2.50%
  • McAfee

    3 7.50%
  • Other ... Please specify by a post in thread

    19 47.50%
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 52

Thread: Activist Judges - California Of Course

  1. #1
    Senior Member OverdueSpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    556

    Activist Judges - California Of Course

    Another reason that we need to appoint judges that interpret the constitution instead of inserting their beleifs into their rulings. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals set a precent that will remain until overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Just Sad.

    SAN FRANCISCO A federal judge ruled Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance (search) in public schools was unconstitutional.

    U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton (search) ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." The judge has granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court

    Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow (search) that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
    Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169379,00.html
    The mentally handicaped are persecuted in this great country, and I say rightfully so! These people are NUTS!!!!

  2. #2
    They call me the Hunted foxyloxley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    3rd Rock from Sun
    Posts
    2,528
    Does that mean that he [atheist] will also desist from using the good old US$

    as far as I can remember, they DO have 'In God we Trust' printed on them
    55 - I'm fiftyfeckinfive and STILL no wiser,
    OLDER yes
    Beware of Geeks bearing GIF's
    come and waste the day :P at The Taz Zone

  3. #3
    Frustrated Mad Scientist
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,152
    Some ****ers have too much time on their hands.
    What the hell did they waste all that time and money to get two words taken out of a centuries old pledge.

    They made me say the Lords prayer at primary school. I was perfectly capable of deciding that religion was not for me as I grew up. Everyone else in the school was also capable of making that choice.

    Do these people not think that their child is capable of independent thought. Must be hellish to *******s like that for your parents. The kid(S) must spend their lives wrapped in bubblewrap with heaphones playing white noise to drown out the sound of anyone offering an opinion of any sort within 300m and black glasses to hide any sort of religeous iconography.

    I really think people who bring this crap to court should be taken aside and quietly killed. Pile 'em up next to those twats who sue restaurants for the food being hot.

    A fundamentalist athiest WTF?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,429
    Aspman > a "centuries old pledge"? It's barely over 100 years old... hardly "centuries"

    The original one didn't have "under God" in it (it simply read "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
    It wasn't until 1954 that "under God" was added, thanks to this bunch: The Knights of Columbus.

    If y'all would actually read the ruling, now that would help :/

  5. #5
    Frustrated Mad Scientist
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,152
    Fair points Neg.

    Still thinks it's a load of people with a desperate urge to interfere and waste other peoples time.
    That includes tKoC.
    It's one of the things that really annoys me. They way some people have such a narrow focus on their own views that they will waste an extraordinary amount of resources to make a point about something which for the most part is completely pointless.
    All the while ignoring big issues about poverty, hunger, war etc. It's not a just a US issue it seems to be part of the human condition and has been for a long long time.

    Fundamentalist Musilms say Christians are bad
    Fundamentalist Christians say Muslims are bad
    2 athiest families say, "you cant mention God in the pledge"
    The KoC say," You can't take, "'under God' out of the pledge"
    They're at it in Northern Ireland again too (read Gullivers travels for good metaphor of the Catholic/Protestant fight).

    If people werem't dying it would be stupid to the point of being laughable.

  6. #6
    ********** |ceWriterguy
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,608
    I'm waiting on the day they try to alter -

    "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are CREATED equal and are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR certain unalienable rights..."

    or

    (as previously mentioned) in GOD we trust on our money

    also

    annuit coeptis, novus ordo seclorum (also on our money) - translates to: God is with us, a new order is upon us.

    Just keep in mind this is where your tax dollars are going; to pay some idiot to rule out some assenine judgement such as the one mentioned above, or the one against posting the ten commandments at the state legislature, etc. Next thing you know the 'swearing in' of witnesses in court will be changed - who does someone swear to if they're athiest? "So help me, me!" just doesn't have the same power to it...
    Even a broken watch is correct twice a day.

    Which coder said that nobody could outcode Microsoft in their own OS? Write a bit and make a fortune!

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,429
    Gah... just reading the title of the Fox article is too much, right? "Reciting Pledge in Schools Unconstitutional" - Does that look like "Pledge Unconstitutional" to you guys? The point is this: this case is trying to upheld the Constitution, not destroy it: the school's policy is "an unconstitutional violation of the children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." There you go: coercive. Read the Amendments, and you'll know why forcing kids to pledge allegiance is unconstitutional - it's not the Pledge itself.
    The judge ruled that the kid(s) indeed were forced to cite the Pledge (whether that is true or not does not matter in this case), and that indeed is unconstitutional.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    534
    I absolutely agree w/ Negative...

    We need to eradicate every last remaining piece of religion out of every public institiution in this county. "under God" is part of that.

  9. #9
    Senior Member OverdueSpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    556
    Ok. I don't see "freedom from religion" or "freedom from coercion" in the 1st Ammendment

    Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791

    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 the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Some of you have forgotten that the colonial settelers were essentially fleeing religious persecution from the King of England, but God and Religion was still a very big part of their lives. The separation of church and state is to keep the government creating a situation where the only organized religion allowable by law would be ..oh say...Methodist...Pick Your Poision! The American forefathers believed in God, His grace, and His guidance; and based Americas laws from His words. People can delude themselves and read what they want from any given "written statement," but let's face it; the intent of the American forefathers was not to remove God, but rather to ensure that everyone could worship God in their own way.
    The mentally handicaped are persecuted in this great country, and I say rightfully so! These people are NUTS!!!!

  10. #10
    Senior Member roswell1329's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    670
    Originally posted here by Aspman
    Fair points Neg.

    Still thinks it's a load of people with a desperate urge to interfere and waste other peoples time.
    That includes tKoC.
    It's one of the things that really annoys me. They way some people have such a narrow focus on their own views that they will waste an extraordinary amount of resources to make a point about something which for the most part is completely pointless.
    All the while ignoring big issues about poverty, hunger, war etc. It's not a just a US issue it seems to be part of the human condition and has been for a long long time.

    Fundamentalist Musilms say Christians are bad
    Fundamentalist Christians say Muslims are bad
    2 athiest families say, "you cant mention God in the pledge"
    The KoC say," You can't take, "'under God' out of the pledge"
    They're at it in Northern Ireland again too (read Gullivers travels for good metaphor of the Catholic/Protestant fight).

    If people werem't dying it would be stupid to the point of being laughable.
    I have a problem with this argument. You say that different religious groups are calling each other bad, and that violence is erupting in Northern Ireland again, yet you're angry that someone fought for the ideal that this country should never endorse any religion over another? That seems odd to me. It seems that a religion gains a military if it's endorsed by a government. The last thing we need is a holy mandate with an armed force to back it up.

    And as for the "In God We Trust" on the money, as far as I'm concerned this guy can focus on that as his next target. I'm tired of the double-standard in this country regarding religion. You cannot have an administration that supports the statement "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." if they turn right around and stamp the iconic name of a select few religions on official documents. I could care less if the "Founding Fathers" were Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, or atheists, they established that document that we have adopted as our framework, and the First Amendment to that document doesn't seem to offer room for mis-understanding. Government Should Not Respect Any Single Religion.

    Of course, that doesn't mean that the government should ever ignore religion. Religion plays a significant role in the lives of probably 97% of the American public. It OBVIOUSLY is something this country feels strongly about, but if we want to be the Land of the Free, then we can't just acknowledge the largest religion when it's convenient.

    The argument can be made that Muslim, Christian, and Jewish practitioners acknowledge the same god in each of their faiths, but that's still not all the faiths practiced in America. What about Native American beliefs? Shintoism, Taoism, and Hinduism, too? If I were a practitioner of one of these faiths, I might feel slighted that the country I call home doesn't even acknowledge something I believe.

    Since statements like "In God We Trust" obviously respect one religious ideal, I don't see HOW they can even be considered to be Constitutional.

    One of the most crackpot arguments I heard about this case originally was some Christian saying that "Everyone has something they can look at as a God...even atheists...they look at themselves as the most important thing, so they could just take it to mean themselves." Yeah..."In Me We Trust". That's not at all pretentious.

    Bottom line...if it's not something everyone can get behind, it's something noone should get behind.
    /* You are not expected to understand this. */

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •