Pledge of allegiance declared unconstuti

TMMT

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Posts
21,654
Total Time
Alot
Pledge Declared Unconstitutional


By David Kravets
Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, June 26, 2002; 2:22 PM


SAN FRANCISCO –– A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and cannot be recited in schools.



Pledge of allegiance declared unconstutional by 9th circuit court of appeals.

For those of you not familiar with the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia, that is the SFO area.

My apologies for this being off topic but this is just unfreaking believable!!!

TMMT


:mad: :eek: :mad:
 

JediNein

No One Special at all
Joined
Apr 28, 2002
Posts
1,256
Total Time
53 wks
So our monetary system is unconstitutional too... "In God we trust" on every dollar and coin.



CA is known for their don't offend the [fill in blank with downtrodden classification of your choice] policies.

It's the only state where illegal immigrants get free college educations and health care while citizens are denied basic services. The only exception is citizens that are under 21, barefoot, and pregnant.

Flying at night will be easy in the state this summer, too. With rolling blackouts, only the airports and some hospitals will be lit up. The lights you see will be stars so no disorientation there.

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein
 

TMMT

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Posts
21,654
Total Time
Alot
I pledge allegiance
to the rainbow flag
of the Socialist Cooperative of San Francisco.
And to the perversity
for which it stands
Many genders
under Gaia
with condoms and abortions
for all.


TMMT:(
 

Timebuilder

Entrepreneur
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
4,625
Total Time
1634
Not at all

Not when you consider the beliefs about the constitution held by the hundreds of judges placed in their positions by liberal presidents over the past 25 years.

While only a very small minority, less than two percent of the population, is uncomfortable with the idea of the Unites States being "under God", the liberal court believes that the mere mention of God is a violation of the "establishment" clause.

This is the same group that believes that your twelve year old daughter should be able to go to school and have a secret trip to an abortion clinic. This has already happened.

The constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Notwithstanding, of course, that the phrase fails to mention the worship of this God, that god, or any particular "god". It is the worship of God that defines the nature of a religion, not the mention.

Surprised? No.
 

Purple Haze

Out there and lovin' it
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
175
Total Time
>6000
What's next?

CNN.com's lead story:

Court rules Pledge of Allegiance 'unconstitutional'

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) --A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag cannot be recited in public schools because the phrase "under God" endorses religion.

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that reciting the phrase was a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state and amounted to government endorsing religion.

If it stands, the ruling means schoolchildren -- at least in the nine Western states covered by the court -- cannot recite the pledge, according to The Associated Press.

"The recitation that ours is a nation 'under God' is not a mere acknowledgement that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase 'one nation under God' in the context of the pledge is normative," the court said in its decision.

"To recite the pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 -- monotheism."

The phrase was added in 1954 through legislation signed by President Eisenhower. The appeals court noted that Eisenhower wrote then that "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

Although no child is forced to say the pledge, the judges said any child whose personal or religious beliefs prevented him from reciting the pledge was left with the "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting."

The case had been filed against the United States, the U.S. Congress, California, and two school districts and its officials by Andrew Newdow, an atheist whose daughter attends public school in California.

The government said that the phrase "under God" had minimal religious content.

But the appeals court said that teachers having classrooms reciting the pledge did not pass the coercion test. The court also said that an atheist or a holder of certain non-Judeo-Christian beliefs could see it as an attempt to "enforce a `religious orthodoxy' of monotheism."

The three-judge panel was not unanimous in the ruling.

Circuit Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, who agreed with some elements of the decision but disagreed with the overall opinion, said phrases such as "under God" or "In God We Trust" have "no tendency to establish religion in this country," except in the eyes of those who "most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity."

"My reading of the stelliscript suggests that upon Newdow's theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings. 'God Bless America' and 'America the Beautiful' will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third. And currency beware!" wrote Fernandez.

The 9th Circuit is the most liberal and the most overturned appeals court in the country.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/index.html
 

flyboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2002
Posts
277
Total Time
28yrs
This country is going to die by political correctness. Pretty soon, the constitution will be unconstitutional.
 

Clearsky

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2002
Posts
66
Total Time
300
Thats from the San Francisco Court, one of the most liberal in the country. Many of their rulings are over-turned so cross your fingers.
 

Obi-Wan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
205
Total Time
enough
So our monetary system is unconstitutional too... "In God we trust" on every dollar and coin
Actually they are thinking about changing that to in Gold We trust.:)
 

AWACoff

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
1,121
Total Time
3000
Just because I (and others) don't believe in some omnipotent being does not mean I want 12 year olds getting secret abortions. Oh, and I'm a Libertarian that is anti-abortion AND pro-choice. Thanks for the label though.
 

publisher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
592
Total Time
20,000
This

This is brought to you by those who feel we should believe in nothing, have no responsibilities for anything because something else caused it, want no risk in life, and absolutely abhor the fact that others might and seem to be enjoying life.
 

ksu_aviator

GO CATS
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Posts
1,327
Total Time
4100
The Appeals Court misinterpreted the Constitution. Seperation of Church and State has nothing to do with the use of the word God. Its intention was to prevent any church from controlling the President or other government officials.

In context, Englands Kings and Queens answered to the Catholic church until Henry VIII seperated and created his own church. Under both the Catholic and the King's church the people where required to worship only in the one church. I'm not totally sure it was Henry the VIII, but that isn't the core of my arguement so I'll move on.

The point is, our Founding Fathers wrote the Seperation of Church and State portion of the Constitution in the context that they did not want a church controlling their government or the government controlling the church. The religous persicution that results is what lead to the Pilgrams fleeing England for "The New World."

You could argue that the latest Appeals Court ruling and the ban on prayer in schools are booth violations of the intent of Seperation of Church and State.
 

chawbein

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
689
Total Time
999999
This is just another example of the liberal judiciary trying to undermine our culture. If you can take religion out of public places, the only thing that becomes acceptable is worship of the state. Worship of the state is one of the attributes of a Communist/Socialist/Totalitarian government.

Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide. -- John Adams

Oh well
:(
 

JediNein

No One Special at all
Joined
Apr 28, 2002
Posts
1,256
Total Time
53 wks
There has not been a stable government in this planet's history.

However, I can disagree with any branch of the current government without being hauled off in the middle of the night in a little black car to never be seen again.

"On the other hand, gentleman, what if we gave a war and EVERYONE came?" -- Far Side

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein
 

Caveman

Grandpa
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
1,580
Total Time
11000+
"...the Seperation of Church and State portion of the Constitution..."

ksu_aviator,

Even though it appears that you and I agree that the 9th District has its' collective heads up their behinds you are inadvertantly perpetuating a myth with the above statement. The Constitution does not mention the 'separation of church and state' anywhere in it's text. That's a misunderstanding that won't seem to die. I believe Jefferson mentioned that phrase in his personal writings and it may be in the Federalist Papers but it isn't in the Constitution. Some historians lurking out there can correct me on its' original source but I'm absolutely positive that the phrase 'separation of church and state' is NOT in the Consitution.

In a further irony the US Supreme Court today ruled 5-4 that school voucher programs that allow money to be spent in parochial schools IS constitutional. Score one for the good guys.

Regards,

Caveman
 

chawbein

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
689
Total Time
999999
You seem like a fairly enlightened "Caveman" to me!!!!

Here is the text of the first ammendmant, doesn't say a thing about seperation of church and state.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
Last edited:

Timebuilder

Entrepreneur
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
4,625
Total Time
1634
Thanks, chawbein. That is where the often mentioned "establishment clause" lives. As you can see, it is quite a stretch to infer that allowing a prayer at a school football game is the equivalent of congress passing a law that makes official any particular religion. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The first amendment guarantees our ability to worship. With the voucher ruling, the court has reaffirmed the right of the people to choose a school where they will use their voucher. ANY school.

The first mention of the separation of church and state is in a letter that Jefferson wrote to a group of Massachusetts Baptists when he was president. There is no constitutional provision for this concept. It is a good example that a lie, when repeated often enough, becomes treated as the truth. I believe he wanted to avoid a situation such as occured in France under Cardinal Richeliue (sp), where the country was ruled by a church "official".

>>Just because I (and others) don't believe in some omnipotent being does not mean I want 12 year olds getting secret abortions. Oh, and I'm a Libertarian that is anti-abortion AND pro-choice. Thanks for the label though.

In fact, much of the anti-prayer in school and the pro choice movement comes from the left, and not the Libertarian party. Why won't the Libertarians defend the rights of the smallest and weakest?

The left wants to be the "god" of the masses, bestowing rights and benefits as a benevolent mother. They want you to believe in the power of a central government, not a creator. They most certainly want to take the place of a parent in the lives of children by means of their "home", the public school.

The phrase "..one nation, under God" is an affirmation of the beginning of America in the hearts and minds of the founding fathers, and of the generations that followed them. In the second paragraph of the Declarartion of Independence, we see that "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,...".

This is what you can call a "foundational belief".

As our country faces continued attack, we can say as a free people, God Bless America.
 

Alaska

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Posts
46
Total Time
1600
Calm down!

Let it go people, the very same judge who put out this ruling yesterday put his decision on "hold" earlier today. Once he saw he pissed off the entire nation, he'll eventually overturn humself. And it'll be like this never happened. So everybody chill out.
 

homebrew

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2002
Posts
17
Total Time
5000+
No we shouldn't chill out. When a court decision like this is made and tries to take away freedoms that are rightfully our, we do need to stand up and be heard. Does this anger many, you bet, and it should. If the nation heeded your advice to chill out, by your very words, which you stated this judge put his decision on "halt" because of the digust of this nation, this judge would have not made this decision today. He made this decision to halt because we DID shout our disapproval. Good for those that are not afraid to stand up for what is right. Now is not the time to chill out.
 
Top