The Undergod

Post #322,724 by rcareaga 3/11/10 8:45:10 PM 3/11/10 8:51:06 PM Reply	The Undergod The wicked liberal Ninth Circuit has decreed that the words "under God" are permitted in the Pledge of Allegiance: The words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are an appeal to patriotism, not religion, and do not violate the separation of church and state, a federal appeals court ruled today - the same court that declared the pledge unconstitutional in 2002. In a separate ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in San Francisco upheld the placement of the national motto, "In God We Trust," on coins and currency. The language is patriotic and ceremonial, not religious, the court said. http://www.sfgate.co...DTL#ixzz0hvBXgLTY It's odd: I grew up with the loathsome "Pledge of Allegiance," including the "under God" part inserted three years before I began school, but I (in)distinctly remember a period of a year or two, probably circa 1960, when we tykes were informed by our handlers in the Los Angeles Unified School District that "under God" was not to be included in our daily devotion. I don't know what was behind that: maybe an earlier generation of judges properly appalled at that imposed synthetic piety? Anyway, it didn't last, and God had his second coming after a brief interval. Didn't matter to me one way or another, because by 1959 I had concluded, seven year-old contrarian that I was, that the ritual was stupid and meaningless, and remained silent each morning. Indeed, it has now been over half a century since I have recited this insipid formula aloud, although at points before I attained my full growth I was occasionally cowed into lip-synching along with this mandatory tribute to liberty. In adulthood I will stand for the ceremonial obeisance, but will neither raise my right hand from my side (the Pledge originally called for a salute reminiscent of, heh-heh, a certain well known XX century despotism of Mitteleuropa) nor pretend to recite the trite. Piss on the Pledge and all who sail in her. Free men do not require this drivel. cordially, [edit: "case" law] Edited by rcareaga March 11, 2010, 08:51:06 PM EST Expand All History
Post #322,740 by crazy 3/12/10 7:06:15 AM Reply	I caught a detention over it in 9th grade 1977. I refused to stand. When they realized they couldn't force me to stand, they added "talking" to the charge so I'd get the detention. I still didn't stand the next day, but I was careful not to talk (too loudly).
Post #322,796 by Ashton 3/12/10 3:49:17 PM Reply	The definitive tract on 'coerced oaths' (+ a Yoo gotcha) was written by a UC prof (of medieval Greek history? IIRC) named Ernst Kantorowicz, entitled, "The Fundamental Issue." This was in response to the Regents' instituting of such a parody for all UC staff. McCarthy, etc. (Naturally the Best of the bunch resigned in protest.) A fascinating synopsis of the McCarthy hysteria amd how a minority maintained their integrity. At the usual costs. http://delong.typepa...loyalty-oath.html Conclusion of his screed was: A coerced oath is invalid on its face. A rare case where a straightforward Boolean sentence is both necessary and sufficient to the task. Don't see a coerced 'Pledge of Allegiance' as anything but another Loyalty Oath; perhaps today's student needs a pocket card with a summary of this historical tract (along with the Glock, for after-school Bully-neutralization.) (Each day the US sucks more and more, even allowing for the %better reportage of delta-suckiness/day.) We don't remember 1% of the crap-thinking that has already been nullified, like this gem found en passant re. Yoo at UC: February 22, 2010 Berkeley Needs to Dismiss John Yoo For his appearance on KQED this morning, and for many other reasons. Ian Millhiser: Think Progress: Yoo: Congress Cannot Stop the President From Using Nukes: Today, Yoo doubled-down... in an interview with San Francisco radio station KQED. After the host asked him if he stands by his prior support of Presidential massacres, Yoo raised the stakes to endorse the PresidentÂs unilateral authority to use nuclear weapons: Look at the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Â Could Congress tell President Truman that he couldnÂt use a nuclear bomb in Japan, even though Truman thought in good faith he was saving millions of Americans and Japanese lives? Â My only point is that the government places those decisions in the President, and if the Congress doesnÂt like it they can cut off funds for it or they can impeach him.... Yoo misrepresents.... As far back as 1804, a unanimous Supreme Court held in Little v. Barreme that Congress has sweeping authority to limit the PresidentÂs actions in wartime. That case involved an Act of Congress authorizing vessels to seize cargo ships bound for French ports. After the President also authorized vessels to seize ships headed away from French ports, the Supreme Court held this authorization unconstitutional on the grounds that CongressÂ decision to allow one kind of seizure implicitly forbade other kinds of seizure. More recently, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Court held that the President does not have the power to unilaterally set military policy (in those cases with respect to detention); he must comply with statutory limits on his power.... Congress has the power to tell the President Âno,Â and the President must listen. John Yoo is a moral vacuum, but he is also a constitutional law professor at one of the nationÂs top law schools and a former Supreme Court clerk. It is simply impossible that Yoo is not aware of Little, Hamdi and Hamdan, or that he does not understand what they say. So when John Yoo claims that the President is not bound by Congressional limits, he... is lying. http://delong.typepa...y_the_university/
Post #322,807 by dmcarls 3/12/10 9:53:35 PM Reply	The Children's Story Reminds me of a story long ago: From Wiki: The Children's Story is a short story written by James Clavell in 1963 and published in 1981. "While a very short and simple story, it touches on many important concepts, such as freedom, religion, patriotism, etc. It is similar in nature to George Orwell's 1984 in its treatment of propaganda, control, and inter-generational warfare. Clavell was inspired to write this story after a talk with his six-year-old daughter just home from school. His daughter Michaela was explaining how she had learned the Pledge of Allegiance, and he was struck by the thought that, though she had memorized the pledge, she had no idea what many of the words meant. The power to use language as a weapon, as it is done Â all too effectively Â in the classroom of Clavell's story admonishes us to always make sure young minds truly understand what a word really means." The story itself is very interesting. If you wish to read it : http://home.comcast....efler/clavell.htm
Post #322,810 by Another Scott 3/12/10 10:42:12 PM Reply	Interesting story. Thanks. My understanding is that many children who study the Koran are in the same boat when it comes to understanding. Since it's taught in Arabic, children who don't speak or read Arabic learn it by rote without understanding the text. They understand what they're taught about it. But it's apparently even more complicated than that since Arabic has evolved over the past few hundred years (just as English has). E.g. http://www.political...m/blog/the-koran/ Cheers, Scott.
Post #322,947 by Ashton 3/15/10 5:56:00 PM 3/15/10 5:57:24 PM Reply	Excellent! Clavell really Knows how to Tell a Story. (Shogun mesmerized damn near a plurality of Muricans way-back, first over several days ... then the weekly re-runs for some years thereafter.) +6.66 for 'Density' ... but more like Concentration ... of the highest-scale memes that all societies inculcate Give us the child until age 5 and s/he's Ours: any Catholic priest. -- except never so starkly, ""logically"" and via honed psycho-persuasion techniques == in 23 MINUTES. Mark Twain's War Prayer still wins the Two-by-Four Upside-the-Head Award though, IMO. This teaching-koan wins via tersest 'MAN-Unix' implosion-grade compression, I wot. But Twain wins via every artfully literate insight that craftsmanship connotes. (Bet the Scientologists have already parsed this one into a $pecially-priced Über-Clear category, for those majoring in Recruitment.) Boolean is Sooo handy for clearly demonstrating some black/white issue / with single solution ready-made; not-so-good re several million gray-scale choices. Like in actual life. I Love Cosmic Humour. Thanks for a sententious sonnet; such a breath of fresh Air amidst the formula meeja cant-in-C# Minor. Ed: oTpy Edited by Ashton March 15, 2010, 05:57:24 PM EDT Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!