🚀 go-pugleaf

On 1 Jul 2002 16:10:29 GMT, Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@rahul.net> wrote:

>Mike Smith (mws@wt.net) wrote:
>: On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 20:05:35 GMT, Hagbard Celine
>: <All_Powerful@Illuminati.org> wrote:
>
>: >Should a zealously patriotic atheist have the right to participate in
>: >a voluntary program created by government without being forced to make
>: >statements contrary to their religious belief?
>: >
>
>: Should a zealously patriotic atheist be able to tell the rest of the
>: Nation that we MUST change our pledge because he doesn't believe in
>: God? Even though he is not being FORCED to recite the "under God"
>: part?
>
>     Nobody can be forced to recite the Pledge at all.  However the
>courts have ruled that a government-sponsored prayer (which includes
>the Pledge while it contains the words, "Under God") applies undue
>pressure and thus violates the rights of those who would not
>participate without this pressure.
>    I'm completely unclear as to why anybody would _want_ the
>government to sponsor prayers.
>
>: Why do we have to bow down to his wishes, and he doesn't have to bow
>: down to the rest of our wishes? Especially when the phrase "under God"
>: does not violate his 1st Amendment rights.
>
>     Because his wishes are, according to the court, in conformance
>with the First Amendment, and the phrase "Under God" is in violation
>of it.
>     Please clarify for me, Mike: when you say, "the phrase 'Under
>God' does not violate his 1st Amendment rights," are you simply 
>saying the court was wrong or is there more to it?  

All of our first amendment rights are the same. The Congress of the
United States cannot pass a law respecting a religion. It does not
prohibit Congress from passing a law acknowledging a Supreme Being;
unless Congress states, in that law, that the Supreme Being is
Catholic, or Baptist, or Islamic, or etc....... Congress is prohibited
from naming a National religion by using their law-making power that
the Constitution grants them. (The "Congress shall pass  no law" part)

That's all there is, plain and simple. 

IOW, yes, the 9th District Court was wrong, although that is nothing
unusual for that Court.

Mike Smith