US Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional
 

Story here.

The responses I've seen so far have mostly been harsh, from common folk to House Leader Dick Armey to Jerry Falwell...it seems outrageous to most people...it's our heritage, those judges should be impeached, etc.

The chances of this being overturned in the US Supreme Court appear pretty good...the vote in San Francisco was 2-1 against the pledge. But I am glad they made the decision and understand the panel's rationale for doing so. I believe the phrase "under God" should go.

Most of what happened today is based purely on interpretation. Sure, there are some facts involved, like previous rulings in this arena...but it all boils down to how a judge "reads" things.

While the majority of this country believes in "God" and "practices" Christianity, we have a growing number of people who don't believe in God, doubt God, or do not subscribe to Christian beliefs. While certainly open to many interpretations, this is my own interpretation of the phrase "one nation under God":

The United States is subservient to God. God being the name used in Christianity for the being considered the creator of all in the world. Being subservient to someone can be a form of respect, and we may tend to agree with that person's beliefs in order to be more like them. Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, considered by many to be the son of God, both human and divine. Therefore, I conclude that our nation respects the establishment of a religion. In this case, Christianity.

(That took a while to flesh out. But it's only my interpretation and my opinion...you may have your own.)

In the end, God is subjective, unprovable. You may be a pure scientist; you may have two or three or ten Gods of your own. And the outrage expressed by some over the panel's decision makes me sick...I personally believe in God, believe in most of the tenets of Christianity, but damnit! Quit pushing your fucking religion on people. People like Falwell are the real freaks and outcasts of our society.

And what's wrong with "one nation indivisible?" That sounds kick-ass. :)

(LATE EDIT: My earlier editing was poor. Added or corrected words are in bold, except for "subjective," which was already bolded.)

I voted "Yes", because I don't think it should be there. For my stint at South Carroll High School, I stood in respect for my country, but I neither put my hand over my heart nor recited the words. My reason was, of course, because I don't believe in God. Yeah, I'm a dork.

Yes, you ARE a dork, but not b/c of your lack of belief in God. :)

Re: US Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional
 

It makes it ironic that many of the hardcore fundie Christians who are ready and willing to kill the plaintiff and the judge are Southern Baptists positive that THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGAIN!

Ahem.

Removing this phrase from the Pledge IN NO WAY prevents students from reciting it themselves, before, during or after the Pledge.

Keeping organized prayer (of all denominations) out of public schools IN NO WAY prevents students from taking a moment at any time during their school day to silently reflect and pray to the deity of their choice.

Refusing to allow organized prayer into graduation ceremonies, football locker rooms and such IN NO WAY prevents the associated students from organizing themselves and engaging in a group prayer.

But if _you're_ the one who doesn't want to pray to the Christian God or take part in organized prayer or activities involving Christianity, you're a DANGEROUS ANTI-AMERICAN COMMUNIST TRAITOR who should be shot on sight. Or so say many who are going ballistic over this particular ruling.

This case should have been a slam-dunk for the plaintiff, based on common sense and the First Amendment. The dissenting judge replied "What's next, currency?" Not a problem for me -- religious affirmations don't belong THERE, either.

And what's the aftermath of this Constitutionally-correct decision? A Senate resolution blasting it, with the vote going NINETY-NINE LIMP-WRISTED SHITHEADS TO ZERO. Predictable Republican bleating about "liberals" and "stupidity" and "common sense" was joined by DEMOCRATIC bleating about "stupidity" and "common sense." Not ONE elected official had sufficient fortitude to say a single word about "the Rule of Law", the Bill of Rights or freedom of religion in our nation. Not ONE elected official had the nerve to stand up for a decision that might be viewed as "anti-Christian." Might affect the reelection campaign and halt the gravy train of money flowing in, y'know.

The words were inserted at a point in American history when Christianity and patriotism were tightly linked, to fight GODLESS ANTI-CHRISTIAN COMMUNISM[tm]. The battle is long-dead, but the soldiers march on. And on. And on. And those elected to uphold the law cave in to them every single time. Have we no sense of decency, sirs? At long last, have we left no sense of decency?

Pardon me, I'm going to throw up and go to bed.

Should "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech" in the USA guarantee that American children of Muslim faith ought to be able to say aloud in schools "one nation under Allah indivisble, with liberty and justice for all." without being labelled terrorists, or unpatriotic, or anti-American?

How would the bible thumping patriots feel about that expression of patriotism by their fellow Americans of a different faith?

http://www.allah.com/

Jerry Falwell and attorney Gloria Allred were going at it on Hardball tonight. Falwell said something to the effect of..."They want to take everything involving God out of our society. They want to make us a secular nation, like Cuba, like China, like Russia..."

Like I said...freak. :)

Who didn't vote in that resolution? Jesse Helms. IIRC, he's been ill for some time. And I thought Strom was too...last I heard, he was staying at Walter Reed Hospital. Boy, I bet when he heard about this, he hauled ass down Georgia Ave. to vote. (Though, can't another Senator cast a vote for you? My knowledge of procedure is rusty.)

I'm not an American so it is not my call really and I didn't vote in the poll above, but I support all moves to further the separation of Church and State. America is further along this path then most countries, mostly by historical accident it seems to me, as I think the founding fathers may have wanted no Established Church like England had but they certainly didn't want an gnostically neutral State, like the current interruption is heading.

I had to go to a Jesuit school growing up, I didn't like it there, amongst my beefs was having to say the "Hail Mary" before each class and also having to go to Mass during school hours once a week. It is amazing what obscenities you can get away with saying aloud when your voice is being drowned out by the sound of 29 other people praying ;) But that experience has left me wary of any attempt to impose a cultural idea upon children at school that goes beyond say respect for human rights..that makes the Pledge of Allegiance, even without God seems suspect to me, the sight of US kids reciting it seems odd.

I almost spat my coffee when i heard this - absolutely amazing, particualry post S11. I"m with vsp, although it doesn't have the slightest effect on me. I'm already boycotting part of our national anthum ('for those who come across the seas we've boundless plains to spare' ') as it is.

I was a pledge resister in high school. Bringing God into it is probably a violation of some students rights but my main beef was with the ugliness of flag worship and enforced nationalism. To me, it just looks like something more appropriate to an unfree society, where the maintenance of the state is the most important value. The fun part of this whole thing is watching the politicians posturing, its a beautiful thing.

The requirement to <strike>take the loyalty oath</strike>recite the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional enough without the "under God". That just makes it even more blatantly so.

One doesn't <b>have</b> to say the pledge of allegiance. Like I said, I got away all through high school without saying it once. I love my country, but I haven't said the pledge for almost seven years. I'll tell my kids that they don't have to either, if they don't want to. And if they have any shit about it in school, I'll be on the phone. Freedom of speech also entails the freedom to not speak, and one cannot force them to say something that they don't want to.

It seems blatantly obvious to me that this is a good thing. Yet 99% of everyone interviewed on tv is pissed, including all the politicians! What kind of world do I live in? Am I some sort of alien?

I think i'll just be reciting the Pledge of Defiance along with Jello Biafra. :)

http://comp.uark.edu/~dmorton/images...Allegiance.mp3

I agree with this, which is why I voted for "no opinion"... I don't know how much difference it makes.

Mind you, I consider myself very patriotic, and when I think about Things That Made This Country Great(tm), coerced reverence for symbols of the country (symbols, even, not the substance) is not on the list.

I also consider myself a Christian, and I dislike anything that smacks of state involvement in religion. Not only is the espousal of Christian and quasi-Christian ideas by the state an infringment of the rights of those who hold non-majority religious beliefs, I also believe it ultimately insults and trivializes Christian teachings(among which, found in the Bible, are that you should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's, and that religious observance should be private and humble, not public and extravagant).

Martin Luther said it better than I can. I invite you to read his Large Catechism, specifically the commentary on the First Commandment, and then consider if what he describes as idolatry doesn't sound an awful lot like some of the pro-flag rhetoric we've heard in the last day or so.

This is true. But imagine what the fundies would do if they were suddenly transported to Bizarro World, where the relevant section of the Pledge went like this:

"one nation, under NO gods, indivisible..."

or

"one nation, under Allah, indivisible..."

or

"one nation, under Odin, indivisible..."

...and their kids were surrounded by sheep^H^H^H^H^Hclassmates dutifully reciting the oath word-for-word, because that's what they'd been taught to do from their earliest school days.

They'd go BALLISTIC at the notion. How DARE they subject good Christian children to affirmations of someone ELSE'S religious beliefs (or lack thereof)! How DARE they create an environment where their kids are stared at by their classmates, because they're weirdos who won't chant along with the rest of the group!

And, yet, the average American Bible-thumper can't grasp the irony that that's _exactly_ how many atheists and non-Judeo-Christians feel about God being plastered all over American culture, government and currency.

Blah.

Not at all. Unlike 99% of the US population, you seem to be intelligent, and look at this logically rather than emotionally. :)

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

--Former Pres. George Bush Sr.

Do new citizens have to recite "the pledge" as part of their process?

Interesting that you brought that up UT...

"The declaration of God in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t violate rights. As a matter of fact, it’s a confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence."--George W. Bush

To go along with vsp, the concept of "no God" is apparently incredibly hard for most people in this country to grasp.

And now, the judge is staying his decision, opening the possibility of all 11 judges on the panel to review it. The decision would have been stayed for 45 days anyway, but I wonder if the judge did this out of genuine concern or intimidation. I also wonder if Judge Goodwin realized the potential impact of his ruling.

I believe some of them do, but not all.

official: "Say it! Say it you puke!"

potential new citizen: "Ummm...I, ummm...pledge..."

official: "You took too long! No citizenship for you!"

“The declaration of God in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t violate rights. As a matter of fact, it’s a confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence.” -- President George W. Bush

God Save The King. ;)

God save great George our King,
Long live our noble King,
GOD SAVE THE KING.
Send him victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
GOD SAVE THE KING!

O Lord our God arise,
Scatter his enemies,
And make them fall;
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On him our hopes we fix;
God save us all!

Thy choicest gifts in store,
On George be pleased to pour,
Long may he reign;
May he defend our Laws,
And ever give us cause
With heart and voice to sing
GOD SAVE THE KING!

Source: Songs Naval and Military, published by James Rivington, New York, 1779.

America's founding fathers hated that crap!

Americans United for Separation of Church and State
 

I'm with this dude
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/6/27/63448/0050
I find the concept of the UShaving a state religion bloody scary, might be the start of the next crusades, disturbing images of Ashcroft on a horse rampaging across europe with a flaming brand. (Irony unlimited)

And we're well on our way already.

Within 24 hours of the original Pledge decision, the Supreme Court decided that my tax dollars can be used to take kids out of public (secular) schools and, er, pay to RE-EDUCATE them in religious institutions. Some humor value will pop up when someone tries to use vouchers to pay for admission to (let's say) a Wiccan, Scientologist or openly atheist school, but it's still a chilling precedent.

Our Chimp-in-Chief responded to the 9th Circuit's decision with this jaw-dropping statement: "We need common sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God, and those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench." Say WHAT? It's not as if Bush had planned to fill the court with atheists and agnostics prior to this statement, but this is an absolutely bald-faced declaration that there _will be_ a religious litmus test applied to all of Bush's court nominees. If you don't buy into Judeo-Christianity, or feel that separation of church and state is a good idea, you have no place in America's court system and are unfit to uphold the law -- or so says the President.

And, as the quote several messages above restated, the President's daddy isn't so sure that non-believers should even be citizens of this nation, much less in a position of authority to weigh and measure SECULAR law. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

And where is the loyal opposition, the Democratic response to Republicans trying to inextricably bind together God (that is, their God) and patriotism? Robert Byrd declares the lead judge in the decision an "atheist lawyer" and says that said judge had better never come under his Congressional scrutiny, "because he will be remembered." Nice threat, there. Joe Lieberman, a former Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate, calls for a Constitutional Amendment to permanently cement the words into place in the Pledge. The Senate lines up to deliver a unanimous vote denouncing a CORRECT legal decision, and in the House's version, only three Dems had the courage to vote "no."

No, I didn't expect the Democrats to rise up as one and support the Pledge's revision. It's a meaningless issue at its core, but one that can be replayed four hundred thousand times during this election season. Stating the actual facts and laws involved instead of screaming "ME TOO!" would start a blizzard of faxes, emails, death threats and public mockery. But there's a big difference between failure to support the decision and OPEN RIDICULE of its underlying principles. Democrats pushed each other out of the way to be the first to face the camera and shout "The decision is ridiculous and wrong." Ninety-nine senators, 99% of the House and 99% of the media pundits shouted as one that yes, this IS a Christian Nation, and yes, the Judeo-Christian God IS the foundation for our system of laws, and anyone who believes otherwise can go sit out in the hall because they're clearly out of their minds.

I repeat: Say WHAT?

Democratic leadership (and much of the media) mocked those who defected to vote Green in 2000, calling Nader's assertion that "there isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans" ridiculous. Well, while it's not true on all issues, exactly how are non-Christian Democrats supposed to look at this rush to join the Republicans at the pulpit (which, if you listened to Lieberman on the campaign trail, didn't start this week) and NOT feel the least bit disenfranchised?

one nation, under indictment
 

Perhaps, we take all this a bit too seriously ...

so here's a brief humorous interlude courtesy of SatireWire.

I'm actually okay with this, probably because I live in a city with a horrible school system. My only real concern is the loss of revenue to the school district, and what school districts will do, so as not to hurt the quality of education to the remaining students.

But I see it as giving the parents a chance to give their child an education that they're probably won't get in a school district like Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Washington. I don't know what the numbers are, but I'd say that the majority of private schools are parochial (Catholic or Lutheran, primarily), so I'd say by default, many of these kids will wind up in a Catholic or Lutheran school.

And I don't think that's necessarily so bad. When I was in high school, we had quite a few non-Catholics who were there because of the education. Sure, they had to put up with the religious B.S., but by high school, the indoctrination part tends to wear off and you delve into issues like social justice. So long as the parents are involved (e.g. The child and parents talk about the differences between their own religion/beliefs and those at the school they're attending), I think it could work well.

What about teachers?
 

I have heard conflicting information on whether teachers were required to say the pledge and I was wondering if someone could point me in the direction of a difinitive answer. The reason I ask is when I subbed a couple of years ago they made it seem like I had to, and being that my parents taught in the same district I didn't want to press the point but now I want to know for sure.

The appeals court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said that students cannot be compelled to recite the pledge. But even when the pledge is voluntary, "the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge."

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/3554067.htm

SF, it depends on the state. For example, "California, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Nevada, and Alaska all have laws that require schools officials to lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance on a regular basis."

From here

The rules vary by district and maybe by state. A number of schools I subbed at replaced the pledge with a recording of the National Anthem, no standing required. My brother teaches in California and his building doesn't bother.

I guess to the Christian fundementalist the schools already feel like re-education camps. Isn't the primary purpose of Prussian style mandatory schooling, to break the kid away from his roots so he's a more useful tool of the state? As a whole, schools do ere to the side of promoting the dominant local religion, which I oppose, but there are also cases where children and teachers are prevented from expressing their beliefs, like the little girl whose teacher prevented her from saying grace before lunch. What I'm trying to say is tolerance must go both ways and coercion from either side is unacceptable.

So, what I don't get is how is that constitutional? Cause you can quit and starve? what a country....

i never even stood. at first, because i *was* religious, and the idea of practically worshiping a piece of cloth, despite what it stood for, went against what i believed in (having no other gods [not worshiping anything else] besides the christian god) as my religious views changed, i refrained from it because of the "under god" statement. i felt standing would be showing my support of the pledge, which i dont believe in (mainly because of that statement). my senior year of high school, i was an announcer at my school for the morning announcements, and i was given a LOT of shit from one particular vice principal because i always chose to skip my turn reciting the pledge for the school. for a country that is supposed to have freedom of religion, this particular phrase is unacceptable. if the country did not want to have a national religion, they should have completely stood clear of the issue. some have argued (in their effort to persuade me to recite the pledge) that the "under god" statement means "under a god," however one wants to look at that. be it the christian god, buddah, ganesh, a particular goddess, whatever. as dham said, freedom of speech also protects ones freedom to remain silent. likewise, freedom of religion protects ones freedom to not have a religion. to not believe in a god at all. so while this (granted very far-fetched) translation of "under god" may apply to many, how do you translate it to apply to those of us who do not believe in a god? you cant, really, and so i think it should be trashed.

im tired and havent read some of this thread, so excuse me if im repeating someone elses thoughts. :)

Re: What about teachers?
 

my mother is a teacher in a middle school in northern maryland, and (although im sure they want her to) she is not FORCED to say the pledge, as it is a violation of her religion, and therefore it would be unconstitutional for the school to require her to say it. in the statement that sycamore made about particular states having laws saying that school officials are required they lead students in the pledge, if it goes against a school officials religion, id be willing to bet that they do not have to say it. this actually has come up in court cases many times in the past (i am most familiar with cases involving jehovah's witnesses, my mom's religion) with both students and teachers. and it was always (to the best of my knowledge) deemed unconstitutional to force a person to recite the pledge if it is against their religion. with jehovah's witnesses, as i stated in my previous post, it is because the pledge is seen as flag worship, and their god has said that they should worship nothing but himself. i dont have any links to any stories or anything to back this up, but i can locate some if there is interest.

Re: Re: What about teachers?
 

If I understand the religion, Islam would forbid the pledge too, as it forbids pledging yourself to anyone but Allah.

I'm sure there is a way around the "requirement" for religious reasons, but I bet they make you jump through a bunch of hoops.

vsp - scary, scary stuff. All these scary freaky overtones of the 'war on terror/islam' become the next crusades....

http://www.northernsun.com/nsm/images/5895PolAndRel.jpg

You know, it's not a "War on Islam"... I wish people would just shut the fuck up about that.

Keep wishing...

YOU know it's not about that. I know it's not about that. Unfortunately, it has that appearance to some. To others, they would love nothing more.

Lou Dobbs has coined it a war against radical islamists but he's pretty much alone on that one that even though he's had a whole month of thrice daily CNN broadcasts to focus the war on terror against radical islamists, whom he sees as the defined enemy.

Google "war against radical islamists"

Google "war on terror"

Judging by the hit counts on Google, virtually nobody is engaging in Dobbs' brand of rhetoric on this subject.

I think Dobbs is well-intentioned, but do we really need another word to describe what is going on?

Using Gail Shister...I am impressed Nic. :)

Go out into the street in traditional Muslim clothing, then say that...


(And here we go again...)

Good point. I'll probably be arrested and thrown in jail for being a Muslim!

Er, wait... no, that won't happen. 'Cause it's not a war on Islam, like I said.

Furthermore, <b>most</b> places in the US, you'll be fine. I see people in traditional muslim clothing <b>every day</b> and they're having a fine time.

There are a <b>few</b> people in the US that are ignorant enough of the Islamic religion to attack all Muslims that they see. Fortunately, those people are few and far between.

I'm not sure exactly what you hoped to prove by your point, but the fact of the matter is that it is <b>not</b> a war on Islam.The main targets may be Muslims, but that does not mean that all Muslims are the main target.

a: alf the administration are fundies
b: racial profiling?
Its not a general fucking 'war on terror' don't even try and spout that shit, its a war on ISLAMIC terrorism, i don't see Delta Force tracking down Basque terrorists or 'real IRA' members, do you?

If you see Delta Force, it's not Delta Force.

Hey smartguy, look at the last sentence in my post.

This IS supposed to be a war on all terror, but the US apparently believes that al-Qaeda is the most important group to go after right now. I tend to agree with them on that one. The US could give two shits less about the Basque or the IRA...at least right now. It took the US a while to get involved in Kosovo, but they finally did. Unfortunately, we won't know how comprehensive the war on terror will be until we reach that bridge, i.e. wipe out al-Qaeda.

I wish I could agree with you on this one Dave, as that is how it should be. But as a whole, there has always been some suspicion towards Muslims in the States for ages, and that suspicion has probably increased since September 11th. Although, I would say it has probably been "easier" for Muslims in cities where they are in higher numbers (DC, Philadelphia, NYC, Chicago, Detroit).

Sycamore:

Are they getting thrown in jail? Is there state-sponsored persecution such as the Jews during the holocaust?

That's right. They aren't, and there isn't. That's because <b>it is not a mother fucking war on Islam</b>. Period. End of story.

Some have been. The doctor from Texas comes to mind. To my knowledge, there is no state-sponsored persecution of Muslims, though the call for increased surveillance in Muslim communities (mosques and the like) could be considered persecution by some.

I understood your point on that, and agree with you. I disagreed with you on this statement:

"Furthermore, most places in the US, you'll be fine. I see people in traditional muslim clothing every day and they're having a fine time."

I don't agree with you. I think the suspicion and contempt towards Muslims have grown in the past 9 1/2 months, which could cause psychological stress to them...therefore, I would argue that they are not fine. I think Muslims are doing better in cities like DC and Philadelphia, but are probably under greater stress in smaller communities.

The point is that they are <b>not</b> being jailed just because they are followers of Islam.

Taken as two separate sentences (which is what I meant them as), both statements are true. In most places in the US, you will <b>not</b> be persecuted because you are Muslim. I see people in traditional muslim clothing <b>every day</b> and they are having a fine time (as in, not being persecuted because of their clothing). The incidences of attacks on mosques/muslims have fallen <b>radically</b> since 9/11. Even if they <b>hadn't</b>, they are certainly <b>not</b> being persecuted by the government.

Most are not. However, some are under the gun because of a relation to a group or person that is considered suspect by the government. Therefore, one could argue that some are being jailed because they are followers of Islam.

If we base this statement on media reports from various sources around the country, yes, this could be a true statement.

However, I don't think we can be truly certain of this. First, we have to look at the definition of persecute (from Merriam-Webster):

"to harass in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief"

Based on this definition, this leaves a lot of things out there that could be considered persecution. Ignorant looks, "Die you fucking Muslims!", etc. Given that there are thousands of communities in this country, it's hard to really know how much persecution is out there. As of now, I'd say it ranges from slight (big cities) to moderate (small town America).

Anyone wish to fund me for a study of this? :)

I don't doubt you. But you're only one person in the Washington metro area. I too see people in Muslim clothing every day...I also work with one. I have never asked her how she personally is faring after 9/11, although she seems to be doing alright. I see Muslims on the streets of Philadelphia, and many seem to be doing alright, but I also see the strange looks and angry stares that some of them receive. I also wonder how Muslims in places like Atlanta, or San Diego, or Show Low, AZ are faring.

I agree with the first sentence. However, as I mentioned in the first part of this post, some are under the gun because of a relation to a group or person that is considered suspect by the government. Therefore, one could argue that some (not many, but some) are being persecuted by the government because they are followers of Islam.

Then what do you call the people that have been held in commudicado since shortly after Sept. 11? And the holocaust is an extreme example, as well as being irrelevant. What that says is as long as we aren't throwing people in ovens we can't be <b> that </b> bad.

Then why aren't we stopping the Vietiemse and Laotian terrorists working out of CA. Or why do we continue to train people at FT. Benning to use terrorist techniques thoughout South America? And don't that it's somehow different, it isn't.

The US has supproted some of the wrost regimes ever to come into existance, partiuclar in south america, but that is irrelavent.

syc
You really think they will? Really? With a straight face you seriously think they will do that?

My origional point was that the 'war on terror' is an inaccurate, title becase its not a war on terror. Its a war on Al-queda, its a war on Islamic fundamentalism (ironic as hell) or fundamentalist terrorism but NOT ALL TERRORISM. That is all. Even saying Islamic terroism is not accurate, i don't see those pakastani-backed terrorists being rounded up by US forces, despite them being in the same country. Its an iccurate title, its a misleading title, its a title that can be manipulated ot include anyone the administration does not like and thereby almost garantee public support for the latest jihad against whoever became a terrorist today, crackers, crumbling soviet states etc. I don't like that.

jag -

My very point is that it is <b>not</b> a "War on Islam". It may be a "War on al-Qaeda" (which I have argued before), and it just so happens that those al-Qaeda folks call themselves followers of Islam. This does not, in any way, mean that it is a "war on islam" as you called it.

"Unfortunate." Actually, those people are being held on immigration violations. Are they being held <b>because</b> they are suspected to have terrorist links? Yes. But they are <b>not</b> being held because they are Muslims. You're confusing the two.

The Holocaust <b>is</b> an extreme example, but it is a <b>good</b> example of state-sponsored persecution. It's not irrelevant because it was a war against a religion which was effected by a government. This "war on terror" was previously referred to as a "war on islam" which I feel is grossly inaccurate. Basically, what I was saying is "no, a war against a religion would be like the holocaust". For the record, I find the Japanese-American "camps" back in World War II to be one of the most despicable things the US Government has done. So we <b>can</b> be almost "that bad" without throwing people in ovens. Fortunately, neither of those is going on today - the US Government is neither rounding up Muslim Americans nor throwing them in ovens. Happy happy joy joy.

Okay. Speaking of irrelevant... I said, basically, "this is not a war on Islam" and you said what I just quoted. Huh?

Look, we've discussed previously that this is a war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. You and I have personally gone over that. I've never said that it was a "War On All Forms Of Terror That Are Currently Happening In The World." I said it was <b>not</b> a war on Islam.

Now, is it a shame that we're not taking out terrorists <b>everywhere</b> they are? Yes. But you and I both know that the US Government can't do that lest it spread itself too thin and not be able to conquer all of the violent extremists in the world. Baby steps, man. Baby steps.

People are being held for secret trial without benefit of counsel.

'Tards an being excuted in droves.

And our entire political system comes to grinding halt over two fucking words!

That's the saddest thing about this whole quagmire, unless it's the no-balls judge who reversed himself when he stepped too deep in the shit...

Actually, the Appeals Court Justice didn't reverse himself as much as he stayed the decision of the panel of three, pending an appeal to the full bench of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That's an appropriate ruling once it was clear that the decision would be appealed. It doesn't serve anyone's purpose to be off-again on-again about the effectiveness of laws, which may be unconstitutional.

The point that interests me is that there seems to be such an overwhelming political will and unanimity in Congress and the Senate and the Executive branch ... that it could be a settled by a clear and unequivocal Constitutional amendement to embody the Pledge of Allegiance in the Constitution (under God, if that's the will of the people). Like the Bill of Rights. As a proper amendment of the Constitution, the Pledge of Allegiance would not offend the First Amendment because it would be a further amendment of the First Amendment to acknowledge that the Pledge of Allegiance is within the amended Constitution NOT respecting an establishment of religion.

That's an appropriate power of the legislature, to make new law ... to change the law ... even change the Constitution in accordance with the overwhelming will of the people as reflected in the necessary votes in both houses. That's the basis for American democracy ... free to amend the Constituition to make God whatever part of the government the people will support. But the lawmakers should have to face the people on this one, and not hide behind judicial robes and a politically stacked Supreme Court.

It's been over 200 years since the founding fathers expressly separated God from the United States, and the Republic from the Kingdom of England ... and the world has changed since 9/11 when you know who attacked America.

Maybe it's time for a Constitutional changing of the guard.

God Bless America

God Save the King ... er, President.

its closer to a war on islam than a war on terror. The effect is more like a war on islam than a war on terror.

It's most definitely a war on Wahhabi Islam and kinda-sorta a war on any other Islamic country with crappy leadership.

The US's Islamic buddies in Qatar and Turkey are quite safe. And probably even happy about how things have turned.

Any supporting evidence? Or are you just going to spout off without providing justification for your assertions?

It's <b>not</b> a war on Islam. Nanny nanny boo boo. I'm right and you're wrong. Can we at least provide some evidence to support our claims? Or are you content to discuss this as a child?

No offense, but I definitely feel you're incorrect on this. While many in the United States feel that Wahhabi Islam is a perverted strand of Islam (with its restrictions on women and the like), we are hardly waging war against it. So I ask you, what would a "war on Wahhabi Islam" entail?

To me, it would be the round-up of Wahhabi Islamists and the jailing/punishment of them. It would be invasions of nations (such as Saudi Arabia) that widely practice, with government permission, Wahhabi Islam. It would be the interrogation of Wahhabi Islamists to find out where others of their religion are located. It would be a war against a religion.

As I see it, we are currently waging war against the Taliban and al Qaeda. I have explained these views in other threads which I'm sure you've read. So you're aware of my justification for holding these thoughts. That is a war.

It's my contention that the government is not supporting such an operation against Wahhabi Islamists. While there are undoubtedly Wahhabi Islamists in Afghanistan and Pakistan that the US is working to capture, I think the reason we are going after them is because they are militants. Their religion isn't the reason for their pursuit.

I'm interested in hearing your explanation because, honestly, I'm not sure how you could have come to that conclusion. We are simply not doing those things. So I'm curious as to what exactly represents a "war on Wahhabi Islam".

Well, yes, you're right, it's not a war. (It might be a "war", but it's not a war.)

They've kinda sorta declared war on us, but unless they have control of a country we don't really notice.

They appear to fire shoulder-mounted missiles at our planes taking off in Saudi Arabia, but they MISS, so hey what's a few untrained assholes with major weaponry between trading partners?

They appear to lob missiles into Israel from Lebanon and Syria, but there's bigger news in that section of the world, so nobody has a chance to get worked up about it.

Some of them were in Afghanistan, but they weren't FROM there. They were from Arabia, predominantly, but also from Marin County and Britain and all over the world. It was convenient that they went there, and then attacked the US directly, because then the US had a specific target. But if they hadn't gone there, they would be -- SHOULD be as much an enemy to target.

But we can't declare war on them because we aren't really sure who they are. The "they" in all these sentences is what? Is there a smart missile smart enough to target it, all over the world?