Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge

 

The father does not have legal standing to speak for his daughter, but that's a different issue.

Activist judges and judgettes are my favorite peeps.

I'd beg to differ that they "preserved" under God.

 

They foudn a cheap way out.

 

Without ruling lack of standing, there would have been a 4-4 tie (Scalia recused) which would have upheld the decision that "under Gid" was unconstitutional.

 

In an election yhear.

 

No one needed that.

 

By the way, for those who think "under God" belongs in the pledge, the sigh of relief from many church people was audible. To argue that "under God" was not an infringment, it has been argued in this and every other case that "under God" is a phrase so trite, so trivial, so common as an expression to be meaningless, that it has no meaning and therefore is not offensive and does not infringe. So to "win" the "under God" people would have needed a ruling that the phrase "under God" had no meaning. So to "win" was to defame God. To lose and have "under God" struck out in an election year --

 

so standing was a wonderful issue on which to punt!

I copied their headline but I believe it is still accurate as I understand preserve:

 

keep or maintain in unaltered condition; cause to remain or last; "preserve the peace in the family"; "continue the family tradition"; "Carry on the old traditions"

I know that when I was in school it was always way too early in the morning when we had to say the "pledge" and if I opening my mouth I would wind up yawning through the whole damn thing

I copied their headline but I believe it is still accurate as I understand preserve:

 

keep or maintain in unaltered condition; cause to remain or last; "preserve the peace in the family"; "continue the family tradition"; "Carry on the old traditions"

Tex, I am not arguing with your thread title - it was the AP story title - I am very sorry that I was not clear -

 

what the court did was vacate a district court ruling on standing.

 

They did not issue any ruling to preserve anything but to an AP headline writer who has to summarise something, the wording 'SC preserves under God' is a lot catchier than 'SC vacates ruling on standing.'

 

That is what i meant to say - the AP headline is wrong because it implies there was a ruling and there was not, although to the headline writer the catchier "net effect" argument would prevail but that is a result, not the act.

It's not tradition unless you count the fact that it was only put in as a knee jerk reactionism result of McCarthyism during the Cold War. Sorry, I'd like my religion to be in a house of worship and not a school. I'd also like the reasoning to be more pure than simply yet another way to distinguish us from the Communists.

 

Washington's comments in the Treaty of Tripoli are almost never uttered by "America was founded on Christianity" people because Washington said "The United States is not founded on Christianity in any sense."