<<
The law does not mandate that we say the pledge, and therefore there is no reason to offer consequences, that is correct.
<<

Ultimately, this is the distinction I was making. As long as you agree there is not a mandate, we can move on...

>The law does not mandate that we say the pledge, and therefore there is no reason to offer consequences, that is correct. However, the pledge is still codified in the laws written by our government.


<<
Which means, the declaration that our nation is "one nation under god" is made by our supposedly secular government, which leads to the conclusion that those words do not belong there by way of failing the Lemon Test, the Endorsement Test, and the Coersion Test.
>http://www.principals.org/services/legal_pledgeall.html
>
<<

Why do you do this??? Why do you bring up these various doctrines, when you don't have a clue as to how OTHER circuits and the SCOTUS have applied the doctrines. I need to move on here.. Specfically, I cannot accept the constant sniping from websites without the requisite background work to see if the info is : 1: accurate, and 2: relevant. The fact that you have chosen an ultra-liberal site to back up your position has not escaped me. It is
interesting that while the site has a link to the 9th. circuit case, there is no official position on the Board Position Statement page...

You are going to have a to do a little more analysis (actually a lot) before concluding whether the tests are failed. Just becuase YOU or a specific source says it does, does not make it so. And this constant parroting of info from other sites by you, quite frankly, is disturbing to see. The biggest mistake you can make is to find a source that happens to back up/be sympathetic to your position and trot out those statements as your own...


>>You have erred by making the leap that somehow, the US Gov't has endorsed a specific religion.
>
>I haven't even presented that yet. I wanted the Petersen approval before I got to far. *s*
>

It is a threshold issue Mike.... Look at the beginning of any code/statute. there is always a section on defintions. You cannot go further unless you can agree/come to a consensus on definitions...

>>Theism itself is not a relgion.
>
>Prove it. A couple messages ago I asked you for a list of acceptable religions. You did not, and can not produce one. Instead, the best idea is to look up the definition of "religion". Would you agree?
>

I don't have to nor is it my job to prove your points. YOU are the one contending it is A religion. You are the moving party. Therefore, you are the one who bears the burden of proving the point, not me. The athiest in the 9th. Circuit trotted this very argument out and Buchannan smacked it back by saying Theism is a generic belief in a God, not a specific religion that endorses a specific God. The guy could not defend his own point. And FWIW, you can't either...


>http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=religion&r=67
>a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
>b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
>
>Keeping in mind the "personal" attribute of religion, I would conclude that monotheism (belief that there is only one God) is a religion (Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power).
>
>If my conclusion is incorrect, please point out exactly why.

As far as these 2 defs are concerned, I don't if it is correct or incorrect. I am not sure it is relevant... Instead, you need to juxtapose the phrase 'Under God' and make an argument WHY the Establishment Clause is violated. This means you are going to have to research the line of cases that have been held to violate the clause and those that have not been held to violate the clause. Then, you need to compare the facts here to those cases.

You know I am going to argue this on a legal/constitutional basis, with a little common sense added in. You are arguing this point from how you feel, which BTW, you are entitled to feel however you want. You are always justified in your feelings. But you cannot say you are arguing this on const. terms by simply quoting the text of the document. The const. is made up of elements that are beyond the 4 corners of the document...


>>It merely recognizes the existence of a God.
>
>Which makes it a religion. By defintion. Agreed?

As far as the Establishment Clause is concerned, no....


>
>>I know of folks who do not adopt a specific religion, but believe in God.
>
>I believe what you meant in the above sentence is:
>
>"I know of folks who do not adopt an institutionalized religion, but believe in God."
>

Mike, I choose my words carefully. If I meant to say (qualify) institutionalized, I would have. Don't try and put words in my mouth to prop up your argument. You know I will not let you get away with that...


>
From that, you can not make the irrational leap that they have no, or do not profess a specific religion.
>

USING YOUR WORDS, I SUPPOSE YOU COULD SAY THAT.


>>Theism IS NOT a religion. The pledge is not backed up by a specific law.
>
>Do you still stand by these claims?
>

Absolutely...


>>Again, if you are going to continue to take those snotty little pot shots, I will respond in kind...
>
>What snotty pot shots are you refering to?

Items like "Please Pay Attention", etc...

I believe we have reached a dead end here.....