Hey, I blogged this back in March, too:

http://arguewithsigns.net/mt/archives/001622.html

The vote was really a formality. The truth be known, the split had more to do with the BWA accepting the "moderate" off-shoot of the SBC as a member than any real differences over theology. It's all about power and politics, little about God.

From good God-fearing folks like me, is it really such a big deal that a couple words that were added to the pledge well after its creation, might be removed from the pledge?

Not if Congress does it, with each member's vote recorded so his or her constituents can reward or punish as suits them.

But letting the elected representatives make the call isn't good enough for people like Newdow, who seems to think us snake-handlin' yokels need to be saved from ourselves whether we want to be, or not.

Consumer confidence may be rebounding overall, but it certain, battleground states it hasn't perked up...yet. Kerry's probably tailoring his message to those states. Wisconsin is one of those. Jobs number are improving but retail spending is a bit sluggish.

Newdow is a world class jerk who doesn't mind selling his own daughter out to further his own political beliefs. Complete and utter jerk.

Sean, Colorado seems to be a bit the same. The overall trend is extremely positive, though--it just seems to me to be a losing attack the same way that "he can't even catch Saddam" proved to be a losing attack: it leaves the opposition open to a gotcha moment of serious proportions. And in this case, it seems like a pretty foreseeable gotcha moment because those trends aren't too likely to reverse over the next few months.

And did I say that Newdow was a jerk? Yes? Well, then, did I say that Kerry is a jerk?

Heheh.

I'm with you on the Pledge. We (and the Supreme Court and Congress) have much more important things to attend to. Say "under God." Don't say "under God." I really don't care.

"I doubt that anything else would help the spread of liberalism"

"Liberalism" being relative, of course.

A few thoughts: I agree that a church should not be political. Jesus was neither Republican nor Democrat.

That being said, the Bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin. I don't think I could support a church that ignored the dictates of the Bible. Furthermore, the Bible has very clear guidelines on how to treat someone who willfully and deliberately intends to continue sinning. Although why it is applied just homosexuality and not to other sins of adultery and lying and stealing, etc, is beyond me, I admit.
Finally, I'm with Kevin McGehee: it's not the removal of the words from the pledge that matters, it is the method.
Right now, no one is forced to say the pledge, much less say the words "under God". Yet the anti-"under God" group claims coercion. If the words are removed from the pledge, but the same people continue to say the words, the same level of coercion (social pressure) would still be there...so what would be the next step to preserve the anti-"under God" sensibilities? Outlawing it? Using judicial fiat to remove the words from the pledge is a dangerous precedent stifling religious expression. A successful lobby of Congress that results in a legal change avoids that.

Moreover, even if you accept the weak argument that "under God" violates the 50's era SCOTUS ruling of "separation of church and state", shouldn't the Bill of Rights (Freedom of Religious Expression) take precedence?

The EU rightly does not want to be associated with a country with a terrible track record of human rights, which at the moment is simply unwilling to change. Its important to note that joining the EU would have very little affect at all on the Turkish home government. Its a problem that has to be fixed by themselves, before they can join.
Im curious as to how Turkey joining the EU would be good for the rest of it....it actually wouldnt be. Now that 10 new countries have joined, setting these up with powerful and steady economies should be the main task. Expanding again soon would leave the EU with some problems, especially a country the size of Turkey.

Nathan: The first ammendment to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." These two clauses are referred to as the establishment clause and the freedom clause, respectively. The "50's era SCOTUS ruling of 'separation of church and state'" that you mention establishes nothing, it (supposedly) clarifies the meaning of "establishment of religion" (although we still seem to be arguing about it all of these years later). So, to answer your question, this is not a case where the Bill of Rights can take precedence - both sides in the argument are claiming the Bill of Rights as the source of their claim. The question would have come down to whether or not the inclusion of the words "under God" constitutes an "establishment" of religion. By dismissing the case on a technicality the SCOTUS has left that question unanswered.

GR- read the linked article and it answers every question that you've raised--and convincingly, in my opinion. As a short answer, though, moving liberal ideals into that region most certainly does benefit the EU by creating stability and larger markets. Political stability in moving into the Middle East is in everyone's best intrest--in the same way that Iraq is meant to be a political beachhead of sorts, Turkey could act in the same way.

Lastly, I do think that Turkey has shown willingness to move on human rights, although I do agree that they have a long way to go. As the article notes, though, EU membership has helped former communist countries in growing and stabilizing their democracies. Joining most certainly affect Turkey's home government--the structure of the EU is such that it places absolute demands on governmental behavior of its members. Turkey would have to meet those demands both politically and economically. In what way would that not have some lasting effect?

Nathan,

As for homosexuality being a sin, I've noted before that all churches cherry pick what they consider to be sins and leave the rest behind. I think that there is room for discussion as to whether homosexuality stands as a sin or as one of those guidelines that we freely ignore in the modern church.

As for "under God," I don't like the way Newdow brought the case forward because there was nothing about his case that actually involved his daughter--that is, she didn't mind saying the pledge, happens to be Christian, and didn't mind saying "under God," and yet her father was trying to convince the court that the phrase was somehow harmful to her. That's a little disgusting to me and is just an obvious extension of his own political beliefs and desires, using her as a sort of convenience in filing the suit.

On the issue itself, though, I'm retreating to what Jim said: Say "under God." Don't say "under God." I really don't care.

Like Los Angeles being coerced into removing the tiny cross that had been on its seal--it really doesn't change anything (I would have been hard pressed to tell you that it existed on their seal), but it seems awfully damned petty to me. It seems to me that some people should find new hobbies, because eradicating every last vestige of God from the public sphere isn't really on my list of important things to do.

Now, when a Senator proposes a bill to make the Baptist church the official state religion, I'll get upset. That's an obvious, blatant no no. When a judge holds up the bible as being higher authority than the law he's sworn to uphold, I'm not comfortable, either--I might agree, but I'm not a sitting judge, and I want our judges to base their decisions on law not on religion.

But that little tiny cross? Does that really rise to the level of establishment of religion? Well, there's where I have to just roll my eyes and wonder why they didn't take up rollerblading instead.

[redacted]
Never mind. [grin]

Heheh. Yeah, we've probably covered a lot of that ground a few times, haven't we?

Yep. :)

I really had you on the ropes, too. You shoulda seen it! [grin]
One of these days I'm going to make it down to a Blogger Bash and talk theology with y'all. Or guns.

Yep. :)

I really had you on the ropes, too. You shoulda seen it! [grin]
One of these days I'm going to make it down to a Blogger Bash and talk theology with y'all. Or guns.

''Turkey would have to meet those demands both politically and economically. In what way would that not have some lasting effect?''

This isnt really true. The structure of the EU is loose, and political rulings that apply across the entire EU at the moment are pretty much restricted to environmental issues, and some interference with the individual members court system. Home governments still have a pretty much free reign. Note the split in the EU over the Iraq war, members do not have to conform or agree on issues at all. At the moment, the EU is only on the verge of branching into political unity. Turkey joining the EU would not result in immediate change.

I do believe Turkey should join eventually, but not when 10 new countries who at the moment are no where near as prosperous as the old EU need building up.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree. The EU makes very specific demands on its members in reference to economy and is moving toward making extremely specific demands on its members in reference to citizens rights in the form of the hotly debated EU constitution.

The leadershop of the EU sees it as becoming a sort of super state, and that means there will continue to be demands placed on member states to conform to certain standards.

To be honest, i dont think the EU has quite got to that level yet. Its gonna be a good many years before the EU really becomes a ''super state'' and its going to be met with a lot of resentment. Conservatives dont want change, and i know from experience a lot of people here feel that independence is threatened. Truth is, it really isnt at the moment. Some in Turkey may just be as unwilling to change. Although its understandable, and many countries have done it previously Turkey wants to reap the economic benefits. As i said, Turkey can wait in my opinion.

Wow. I've never heard someone leaving a denomination because it was too conservative. Why not hook up with the Methodists or Episcopalians? Lots of flexibility there :)

Heh. A little too much flexibility for my taste.

Darnit.

It's interesting that you say that denominations cherry pick sins. This debate of gay marriage is futile. The debate over sin is not. But, if you consider yourself a Christian, the question that must precede all of your decisions is if the Holy Bible is, or is not, the inspired Word of God. If it is, then you might wanna brush up on what is sin and what is not by skimmimg some verses from the Epistles of Paul. If it is not, then it doesn't really matter anyway, you are basically just inventing your own religion, using the Bible as kind of a blueprint for "rights" and "wrongs," tempered with societal conformities.
As far as gay marriage goes, I believe that there are two issues at stake, not just one. The first issue is the name that we give this thing that homosexuals want to do. (i.e. - marriage) This word causes so many problems because it's roots are in the Christian Church... even further back, Judaism. This ceremony is a religious ceremony, thus the word is tied up together with religion. If you are a Bible believing Christian, chances are you don't want for confessed and practicing homosexuals (they'll get it right one of these days) to attach this religious word to a sinful act. However, as Americans, homosexuals should have the right to do whatever anyone else does. There should be nothing devisive in society that makes a homosexual feel alienated or like anyone is against them. They should be able to be as American as the next couple.
Once the word is changed, the problem will be alleviated. But, I don't think that any homosexual will be satisfied with anything short of the title of "marriage" affixed to their union.
Maybe since you are such a good nickname inventor, you could come up with a good name for gay marriage so this problem can be settled.
-Super