Thursday, March 11, 2010

Ninth Circuit Court rules "under God" is constitutional

Interesting. Pat Robertson's God? Or Jefferson's?

Statement on Ninth Circuit's Decision in Newdow Pledge Case

12 comments:

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Tough break for those hoping it would be "under Al Gore". The court just isn't on the cutting edge of the new religions.

Well...one could interpet "under God" in the global warming religion as "under Al Gore". (and his mansion that consumes 5 times more elctricity than the average American household)

Think warm thoughts.

John Jost said...

Notice the usual snide suggestion in the language: "upholding a school's right to conduct the patriotic ritual". Would omitting "under God" make it less patriotic?

As to the Supreme Court's improbable involvement, I seem to remember that one of its justices once declared that "In God we trust" on currency was "not a religious message". In good blog speak, WTF?

John Jost said...

And about your comment, in Shakespearian fashion: if one God, which one? That is the question...

Mpeterson said...

Most likely the God Who arranged for Al Qaeda to blow up the Trade Centers because we now 'allow' lesbians to live freely in America.

DanBack said...

Kevin, you've never answered my question. Since quoting the Bible in your official emails as Morality Czar of Kewaskum is ok, would you be ok with other Kewaskum officials quoting the Quoran?

Or is it only your religion and god that are acceptable in the public square?

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Dan,

Sure, I have no problem with my opponents and public officials quoting anything they want in their public official email.

Free speech.

It doesn't mean I will not criticize their ideas or thoughts. However, I would never threaten them with government suppression.

Where I do have a problem is: Mark Peterson claiming he's a crusader of free speech, while threatening me with government (court) "review" over proposed inspirational bible passages. But, at the same time, defending the WB Library director insulting taxpayers...double standard.

Why do inspirational bible passages not have the same free speech rights as an insulting library director?

Who does the "grading" of which speech is acceptable?

So a foul mouthed public official is preferable speech to Psalm 118:24?

Shouldn't free speech crudsaders defend all speech from government review?

This is where I'm confused Dan....

DanBack said...

"Where I do have a problem is: Mark Peterson claiming he's a crusader of free speech, while threatening me with government (court) "review" over proposed inspirational bible passages. But, at the same time, defending the WB Library director insulting taxpayers...double standard."

Really Kevin? He threatened you? There you go keeping that big bad wolf alive again. Maybe Tyree did come off as dumb in that email. Are you suggesting we need to approve all public employee speech so that they don't come off as dumb?

"Why do inspirational bible passages not have the same free speech rights as an insulting library director?"

It's called the Establishment Clause Kevin. I think a better question is what on Earth does any religion have to do with trash pick up and city road construction? When you email your pastor with the latest parish budget report do you include particularly inspirational sections of the Kewaskum municipal code?


"Who does the "grading" of which speech is acceptable?"

The founding fathers. You like them, right?


"So a foul mouthed public official is preferable speech to Psalm 118:24?"

Yes.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Dan,

I'm saying its absurd for you to defend Tyree's behavior as "free speech", but then in the same breath say inspirational bible quotes are the bogeyman and need to be suppressed.

Do you know how radical crazy that sounds?

The establishment clause suppresses religion? Really?

Just what is "religion"?

Great, I'm going to start by suppressing the dangerous religion of global warming in the public square. The constant worship of Al Gore violates the establishment clause.

Here's another test. What if I didn't lable them as bible passages?

acceptable? unacceptable?

Can I tell my constituents to "love their neighbor"?

too biblical? will the religious thought police get me on that one?

Your email shocked me Dan. I thought you were for free speech.

I guess I will have to claim the mantle of free speech defender.

DanBack said...

Oh stop Kevin. Saying politicians shouldn't include religious writings in official communications is about as radical as a ham sandwich.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Dan,

So insulting constituents with a public email is OK.

But telling the constituent to 'love your neighbor' in a public email is not? (for fear of the biblical message?)

This is the absurdity, and destruction of the first amendment, produced when you try and censor religious speech...in this case, "branding" speech as "religion" so IT CANNOT BE SPOKEN.

Now who is dodging the question?

The establishment clause has been perverted by so-called progressives to be used as a weapon to suppress public speech they do not like.

All one has to do is scream "RELIGION"! It's the political equivalent of yelling "fire" in the crowded theatre. Prof. Peterson yells, "RELIGION" loud and clear as verboten in the public square. He's especially fond of yelling "RELIGION!" in the West Bend School board race.

So I've adopted the so-called progressive political weapon whenever global warming, evolution, and any "progressive" political cult that believes public officials insulting constituents is acceptable,...I'll scream "RELIGION"!

Is this a problem?

My only point is: alleged free speech crusaders like yourselves should protect all speech, not just the speech you like...

So, I'll ask again...telling my constituents to "love thy neighbor" in my public official email...acceptable? or unacceptable?

DanBack said...

So you'd be Ok if Obama quoted the Qur'an during all his speeches? Because if you say quoting the bible in your official emails is OK then the President doing the same thing must be OK, right?

Under your administration Kevin, what would you call the new Big Brother, Big Government agency designed to approve all public employee speech to make sure they don't make an ass out of themselves and insult anyone?

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Dan,

You make my point.

I don't want any agency or group reviewing and censoring public speech.

But that is what is being advocated by Mark and yourself to insure a "sanitized", non-religious message is always eminating in public....

Do you see how dangerous your "anti-religion" message is to free speech?

Sure, Obama can do that. It would insure he would not be re-elected. So write letters of encouragement for him to read from the Qur'an.