A commentary and journal site for the author. Topics will include Christian issues, gaming, comics, cartoons, news, and anything else I feel like talking about at the moment.
Send comments to firstname.lastname@example.org
Friday, February 28, 2003
Well, this is a surprise
Oh wait, no it isn't. 9th Court not going to review Pledge Ban.
This is a surprise for, what reason again? Sure, it's disappointing that they aren't making use of the reasons they should be reviewing the case -- trivial issues like the fact that he doesn't have custody of the girl and that the girl isn't being injured by saying the Pledge. Surprising? Hardly.
"Say, you folks from a profession known for its greasiness and self-righteousness? Do you think maybe you were wrong about this decision that makes the average person look like an bigot? Of course you realize that if you overturn it, YOU'LL be the one that looks like bigots..."
And you're surprised? Ever hear the definition that an Intellectual is someone that believes anything that insults the intelligence of the average person? That's a two-way joke -- not only are there certain things so ignorant only an Intellectual could possibly believe, the stupider that belief makes the average person look the more likely someone of this nature is to believe it.
This case now makes its way to the arguably inevitable run-in with the Court Supreme. Hopefully someone there has the backbone of one of the dissenting judges -- Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain wrote --
"[i]Newdow I, the subject of our en banc vote, no longer exists; it was withdrawn after the en banc call failed. The panel majority has evolved to this extent: in Newdow I the Pledge was unconstitutional for everybody; in Newdow II the Pledge is only unconstitutional for public school children and teachers. The remainder of this dissent is directed entirely to Newdow II, which, as shall be demonstrated, differs little from Newdow I in its central holding. [b]With grim insistence, the majority in Newdow II continues to stand by its original error--that voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public school violates the Establishment Clause because, according to the two-judge panel majority, it is "a religious act."[/b] Newdow II, ___ F.3d at ___. [b]Common sense would seem to dictate otherwise, as the public and political reaction should by now have made clear. If reciting the Pledge is truly "a religious act" in violation of the Establishment Clause, then so is the recitation of the Constitution itself, the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, the National Motto, or the singing of the National Anthem[/b]. Such an assertion would make hypocrites out of the Founders, and would have the effect of driving any and all references to our religious heritage out of our schools, and eventually out of our public life.[/i]"
Those who do not know the past...
...are still doomed to repeat it if they aren't willing to learn from it.
Stop, you Naughty-Spawn!
Very good article about the problems intelligensia have with the word evil.
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Yes, I'm harping on Michael Bellesiles again...
Another good 'post mortem' on the situation, found via the BlogFather (Instapundit.com).
Editted bekause me kan spel gud