Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Reruns
We all remember Michael Newdow. He's one of those fruits who sings instead of talks, if I recall correctly.
Newdow is an activist atheist, the kind who doesn't believe in God so strongly that he actually fights against this illusionary God more strongly than those who believe in Him pay attention.
The usual humor, though, is in the way this situation is headlined by newspapers. The judge essentially repeated an earlier ruling that said coercing students into reciting the pledge is a violation of the First Amendment (or its California equivalent, I don't care enough to check). The headline reads:
"Judge rules Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional."
What does that even mean? "The following pledge is in violation of the constitution, which describes the government. No, the pledge is not a government, a part of the government, a government action, or even anything relating to government. It's a bunch of words. Nevertheless, this bunch of words violates the constitution."
Moving on to the first line:
"Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional..."
Now, what would really be unconstitutional would be making it illegal to recite the pledge in public schools. As it reads, if a student wanders down a hallway and suddenly recites the pledge, she's in violation of the constitution.
In their lawsuit, each of the adult plaintiffs claimed that he or she had "been made to feel like a 'political outsider' due to the 'government's embrace of (Christian) monotheism in the Pledge of Allegiance,'" Karlton wrote.
Haha! All you other religions LOSE! Your gods aren't God! Only the Christian god is referred to by "God." Also, why is it relevant if they feel like political outsiders? I feel like a political outsider sometimes. OMG unconstitutional!!!
. . .
|
. . .
|
