Journal pagsz's Journal: Ramblings of an Idiot (18th Installment) 2
- Meta-Editoring: While reading through the
Is Linux Dead? discussion yesterday, this comment made me think for a moment: Wanted: moderation for the articles . Some questions that came to mind:
- Would editors have their own Karma (Editor Karma, EK for short)?
- If so, would "good" editors get a +1 Bonus?
- Would "troll" editors post at -1?
- Would there be an EK cap?
OK, I admit, I had a little too much time on my hands yesterday. So, sue me.
- Pledge of Allegiance: The pledge of allegiance unconstitutional? According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, yes. They objected to the use of the phrase "under God," deeming it an infraction of the establishment clause of the first amendment.
As far as that goes, I never thought "under God" belonged in the pledge. Not on legal grounds, as IANACL (Constitutional Lawyer). The addition of "under God"in 1954 (propaganda move) changes the flow and emphasis of the pledge. Whereas originally the emphasis was on the US as being indivisible, it is now on the "Godliness" of the US. I feel the "indivisible" part to be much more important than the "under God" part. Besides, though many on the "religious right" would differ, the United States is not a Christian nation. It is a nation where the majority of the population is Christian. There's a big difference there.
End of Post: To be perfectly honest, I don't really have anything more to say. See you later when I do.
Update: 06:26 PM -- Thursday June 27 2002
The appeals court ruling barring the use of the pledge of allegiance (see number 2)* has been temporarily held up. It seems that the judge who issued the order is now holding it back, until it can be reviewed by the full court (eleven members, the initial decision was by a three person panel). I don't know all the details here, as IANAL, but there seems there's a chance the decision won't even survive the Ninth Circuit. If it does, there's a good chance of it being shot down at the Supreme Court level.
* Now I've found a valid reason to number things -- this way I can refer back to them in the occasional pointless update. I learn something new every day (and on one of them, I'm going to figure out how to get both legs of my pants on).
Re:Under God? (Score:2)
Nah, that would be blatantly unconstitutional.
Or does it mean that an atheist doesn't have to take any notice of the oath?
Depends on the situation, I guess. In the school environment, students are usually required to recite the pledge, notwithstanding religious considerations (atheism, etc). However, a person not reciting it would certainly be repeatedly exposed to it. That's where this case picks up, as I understand it.
________________________
When it comes right down to it, though, no one should be required to recite it.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Republic for which it stands . . ."
Basically, it's a loyalty oath. And to have it forcefully indoctrinated . . . that just doesn't fit.
For almost my whole life, I've known and recited the pledge. Until now, however, I hadn't thought that much about it. It wasn't until now that I could see how hypocritical it is . . . a loyalty oath in a nation that cherishes free thought and free expression.
Rue the day when my IQ matches my User ID. For now, though, it matches my Karma . . .