legislature adds under God to Texas flag pledge
While looking for news about the Texas legislature's pending bill on
voter I.D., I ran across a news item that both houses of the Texas
legislature passed a bill adding under God to the Texas pledge of
allegiance. I hadn't realized that Texas
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 7:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Texas legislature adds under God to Texas flag pledge
While looking for news about the Texas legislature's pending bill
on
voter I.D., I ran across a news item that both houses of the Texas
legislature passed a bill adding under God
Winger's permission...
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Richard
Winger
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 7:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Texas legislature adds under God to Texas
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Richard
Winger
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 7:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Texas legislature adds under God to Texas flag pledge
While looking for news about the Texas legislature's pending bill
A Nation Under God
Let others worry about the
rapture: For the increasingly powerful Christian
Reconstruction movement, the
task is to establish the Kingdom
of God right
nowfrom the
courthouse to the White House.
Read the article online:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature
The answer to your first
question is perfectly obvious.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005
12:50 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: George Washington
adding under God to the Presidential oath
Sorry, but because I just recently began following this line of discussion
would someone kindly inform me as to the meaning of the subject line which
has "George Washington adding 'under God' to the Presidential oath." Or,
is it merely a bit of humor? And, I hope my grammar is ok
Does grammar have a role to
play in the controversy between Marty and Jim? If so, it seems Marty wins.
"Democratic" is, of course, an adjective; "Democrat" is a noun. If not, why
not?
Bobby
Robert Justin
LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of
LawDelaware
How about capitalization? How about punctuation?
I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat Party. Truth is, I only
pretend to be saluting McCarthy, whose information turned out to be impeccable
even if his personality and ethic did not. My pretense was offered
because, in pointing out the
/2005 8:14 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
How about capitalization? How about punctuation?
I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat Party. Truth is, I only pretend to
be saluting McCarthy, whose information turned
]
*
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:55 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential
oath
It comes from
In a message dated 7/20/2005 9:15:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about capitalization? How about punctuation?
I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat
Party.
You can, of course,
call the Democratic Party anything you wish. However, the
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: George Washington
adding under God to the Presidential oath
In a
message dated 7/20/2005 10:22:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I never
associated Democrat Party with McCarthy, although I'm not all that surprised to
learn that he
In a message dated 7/20/2005 11:35:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It would help if you would
respect the norms.
Please. An end to this nonsense.
I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat Party. Some of you may
dislike it. You, in turn, will call me juvenile.
I don't understand what all this food-fighting is about. I am a proud member of the Republic Party and I am not offended when others call it the Republic Party!
Cheers and Blessings to Democrat and Republic listmembers alike, Rick Duncan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 7/20/2005
And to the Libertars and Socials as well.
On 7/20/05, Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't understand what all this food-fighting is about. I am a proud member
of the Republic Party and I am not offended when others call it the Republic
Party!
Cheers and Blessings to Democrat and
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat Party. Some of you
may dislike it.
If I had my voter registration card with me here, I could see just what
it says I am. Since I don't, I'll have to go on memory alone. I'm
pretty sure I'm a registered member of the
What about the Pale Mint folk?
Samuel V wrote:
And to the Libertars and Socials as well.
On 7/20/05, Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't understand what all this food-fighting is about. I am a proud member
of the Republic Party and I am not offended when others call it the
Sent: 7/20/2005 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
And to the Libertars and Socials as well.
On 7/20/05, Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't understand what all this food-fighting is about. I am a proud
member
of the Republic Party and I am
Scarberry, Mark wrote:
Thus the Democratic Party seems to want special
treatment, claiming the right to have its members known as Democrats rather
than Democratics. :-)
That's 'cause we're special*. *Noddle*
Jean
*For an unspecified value of "special"
Arthur V. Watkins, a Republican, was an honorable man. Consequently, the censure of Joseph McCarthy was not done in error. Had his information been "impeccable," he would not have been censured.
The Party of Joseph McCarthy may, if it chooses, call the Democratic Party "the Democrat Party" in
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
I've heard various people mention that George Washington added
so help me God to the constitutionally prescribed, which is I do
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of
President of the United States, and will to the best of my
-
From: Jean Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:21 pm
Subject: Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
I've heard various people mention that George Washington added
so help me God to the constitutionally prescribed, which
I am slow coming to this thread. I did some research on oaths in
connection with the mysterious disappearance of "so help me God" in testimonial
oaths administered during the Democrat interregnum on the Senate Judiciary
Committee, after Jim Jeffords left the Republican Caucus. With Pat Leahy
Jim: The proper adjective is Democratic, as in Democratic Party. (But
then, you probably already knew that.) Sorry for the lecture, but this is a
hobbyhorse of mine: The lockstep use of Democrat as an adjective is not only
juvenile, and grating on the ears, it's also quite literally
Read the original charter at Harvard. Closely! It is a dead give a way!
I am slow coming to this thread. I did some research on oaths in
connection with the mysterious disappearance of "so help me God" in testimonial
oaths administered during the Democrat interregnum on the Senate Judiciary
In a message dated 7/19/2005 4:35:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim: The proper adjective is "Democratic," as in "Democratic
Party." (But then, you probably already knew that.) Sorry for the
lecture, but this is a hobbyhorse of mine: The lockstep use of
I've heard various people mention that George Washington added
so help me God to the constitutionally prescribed, which is I do
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of
President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability,
preserve, protect and
Long op-ed of likely interest to list members:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110005223
Sent from the BlackBerry Wireless Handheld of:
Anthony R. Picarello, Jr.
Vice President General Counsel
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
1350 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 605
Washington,
An odd piece. The author doesn't distinguish between being a minority and
being an outsider. He doesn't distinguish between the experience of
difference that arises when private individuals and institutions espouse
beliefs and engage in practices that do not parallel one's own beliefs and
Title: Re: Huntington in WSJ re Under God
I take his point to be simply that religious outsiders may feel like outsiders because they are outsiders. A pretty uncontroversial point as far as it goes, if not often said in polite company. More interesting is the tacit corollary, a challenge
At 04:01 PM 6/16/04 -0700, you wrote:
outsiders today in contemporary,
secular America. And I hear it a lot from the far Right and the far Left
that Jews run the country and the media -- that we are the ultimate
insiders. And what about minority Christian denominations like Christian
Scientists,
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 11:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Under god
I find the dialogue between Steve and Mike quite informative regarding
the debate on the foundation of fundamental rights. I sense that Steve
holds a neo-Kantian belief that rights can
I appreciate Tom's timely response -- but I'm certainly willing to wait for
a response to this post until Tom completes his travels.
I have considerable sympathy for Tom's suggestion that if including under
God in the pledge is unconstitutional, we ought to consider alternatives
like a pause
issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Under God
I appreciate Tom's timely response -- but I'm certainly willing to wait
for
a response to this post until Tom completes his travels.
I have considerable sympathy for Tom's suggestion that if including
under
God in the pledge is unconstitutional
In response to the posts of Tom Berg, Frank Beckwith, Gene Summerlin, and with apologies to anyone elseexpressing similar arguments whoI've failed to mention, consider the following:
Tomorrow, no Friday since tomorrow is April Fool's Day, the New York Times, oh yes, the Washington Times
what Tom means when he suggests that government may rely on a
religious rationale for basic rights and, therefore, may include the term
under God in the pledge. Tom, what exactly does it mean for a government
to have a religious rationale for something. I assume a rationale is either
Tom Berg stated in an earlier e-mail that:
In my view, this is the most powerful rationale for upholding the
inclusion of under God in the Pledge. It is, under this argument, a
permissible recognition of a religious rationale for basic rights (for
liberty and justice for all): that government
I should emphasize again that I am ambivalent about under God in the
Pledge, and I recognize some significant rejoinders to my defense of it.
But let me respond to some of Mark's particular points. (I'll have to
respond to others later, as class preparation beckons!)
Does the Establishment
As Tom indicated, his article covers both sides of the Pledge question.
I am focusing here on his argument which questions the neutrality of
taking under God out of the pledge because some people could not
affirm the Pledge without a recognition that their allegiance to the
state is limited
-4331
fax (812) 855-0555
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark
Modak-Truran
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 6:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Under God
As Tom
In a message dated 3/30/2004 8:50:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, it can put in the form of a question: If not under God, then under what?
Why must there be an "under" anything? Although the existential condition of being "under" nothing migh
Title: Re: Under God
Justification has to do with epistemology. Im raising an ontological question about the nature of rights. One can certainly be justified in believing that one has rights without ever having an argument or reasons. For example, my grandma was pretty sure she had rightsbut
On 3/30/04 8:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/30/2004 7:08:25 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bobby Lipkin presents an argument that government can be humane, in the
sense of not inflicting suffering or cruelty -- and, would he
Ah, philosophy!
One can see things in human nature and not say that they are from god. One can assert natural rights without claiming they come from god.
It surprises me how utilitarian the argument for under God has become - it is useful to limit government by explicitly saying it is subject
Professor Beckwith says his point is about ontology, not justification. But then he goes on to say "'under God, though deniable ontologically, is a reasonable understanding of the grounding of our rights." The language of "grounding our rights" seems to trade on both
religious freedom statute is itself an example of
category 2: adoption of a basic right (religious freedom) on, indeed
heavily on, religious grounds.
Paul is right that I find category 3 much more troublesome, and I agree that
under God in the Pledge might fall into category 3. So
47 matches
Mail list logo
