Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

OT: Pledge of Allegiance rule unconstitutional


NavyDave

Recommended Posts

And you wonder why liberals and the godless left don't have my respect.

http://www.cnn.com

http://www.foxnews.com

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- For the first time ever, a federal appeals court declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional Wednesday because of the words "under God" added by Congress in 1954.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the phrase amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which requires a separation of church and state.

"A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel.

The appeals said that when President Eisenhower signed the legislation inserting "under God" after the words "one nation," he wrote 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."

The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said students cannot hold religious invocations at graduations and cannot be compelled to recite the pledge. But when the pledge is recited in a classroom, a student who objects is confronted with an "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting," the appeals court said.

"Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge," the court said.

The case was brought by Michael A. Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who objected because his second-grade daughter was required to recite the pledge at the Elk Grove school district. A federal judge dismissed his lawsuit, but the 9th Circuit ordered that the case proceed to trial.

"I'm an American citizen. I don't like my rights infringed upon by my government," he said in an interview. Newdow called the pledge a "religious idea that certain people don't agree with."

The government had argued that the religious content of "one nation under God" is minimal.

But the appeals court 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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its funny on CNN which normally shout down conservatives bit their tongue when a 13 yr old black girl and a 70 yr old black man stated how God should remain in the POA as well as other places since the nation was founded on God's principles and how with the craziness and moral decay the country already has we need God for the kids and wayward adults to look to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasnt there a famous court case on mandatory participation of the POA?

I think it had to do with some Hare Krishnas whose religion prohibited the worship of flags or other objects.

Anyone remember this case?

Anyways - the next step will be the removal of the "In God we Trust" on our $ bills. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's not rediculous in fact its one of the best court decisions in recent years. I have been kicked out of class and given in school suspension in a public school for refusing to stand for the pledge. I have no problem with the pledge of allegiance, I am just as much of a patriot as anyone here, and I respect those who fought to make this country what it is, but ever since Eisenhower put 'under-god' into the pledge of allegiance into the pledge of allegiance it has been a joke. Forcing students to recite Eisenhower's modified pledge in class IS uncostitutional and violates seperation of church and state. This has been a long time coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is absolultey sickening. I can't believe those ****ing chicken ****s pulled this. It's a sad sad day for the United States. How about we say, "One nation under the ACLU"? Or how about, "One nation under ****ing libeal assholes who are and will be the reason for the downfall of the United States"? Somebody shoot me.

Liberals are like tooth decay. They eat and eat until there's nothing left, then they go after your kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things that amazed me most about last September was afterwards seeing all the flags. I often sing at a nursing home just to raise the spirits of the folk there and I often sing patriotic songs. I remember more people, visitors especially joining in during the weeks immediately following that event. TO encourage patriotism and love of country is a good thing. Hard to really find fault in saying the Pledge. I guess if it is religiously repulsive enough you could get a personal exemption for a student from doing it in class or even let the kid stop a few words short. I remember feeling some nerves about asking for a moment of silence so we could send our thoughts and prayers out there after the eleventh. I did the same thing as a teacher after Colombine. Both times, a part of me expected a complaint. Thankfully, neither time I did.

Truthfully, skins have got to get a little thicker in some areas. This and things like playing tag are truly unlikely to scar an individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a legal or constitutional perspective, this argument makes a valid point. The phrase is an unnecessary intrusion into what is a secular pledge.

From a common sense perspective, what comes to mind is, "Doesn't this guy have anything else to worry about?":jerkoff: . But, some people's mission in life is to be a crusader for trivial causes.

I wonder, is this guy against the Declaration of Independence? By his standards, that document would definitely be declared unconstitutional. It is heavily peppered with references to a higher power.

I'd like to see him take that one on...:shootinth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say we put all butt pirates and like minded godless types like Ford HQ in one state and let them fend for themselves.

A State like California.

Where is Lex Luthor, an armed nuke an a bullseye on the San Andreas fault when you need it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think they felt the need to add "under god" in the 1950's? What was the goal of this addition? Did it work?

BTW: Crying about not being able to force ones religious beliefs over someone elses children is one reason why I can't stand conservatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the breakdown of the 3 judges. Notice that 2 of the 3 were appointed by REPUBLICANS. No one to blame but yourself.

Judge Alfred T.Goodwin

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Appointed by: President Nixon, 1971

Born: June 29, 1923 in Bellingham, Washington

Education: BA, University of Oregon 1947; JD, University of Oregon 1951

Law Practice: Private practice (1951-55)

Judicial Appointments: Oregon Circuit Court (1955-60); Oregon Supreme Court (1960-69); United States District Court for the District of Oregon (1969-71); Ninth Circuit (1971-present)

Judge Stephen Reinhardt

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Appointed by: President Carter, 1980

Born: March 27, 1931 in New York, New York

Education: Pomona College 1951; JD, Yale 1954

Law Practice: United States Air Force General Counsel's Office (1954-56); O'Melveny & Myers (1958-59); Fogel, Julber, Reinhardt, Rothschild & Feldman (1959-)

Judicial Appointments: Ninth Circuit (1980-present)

Judge Ferdinand Fernandez

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Appointed by: President Bush, 1989

Born: May 29, 1937 in Upland, California

Education: BS, USC; JD, USC; LLM, Harvard 1963

Law Practice: Private practice in Pomona (1964-80)

Judicial Appointments: San Bernardino County Superior Court (1980-85); United States District Court for the Central District of California (1985-89); Ninth Circuit (1989-present)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey NavyDave how bout you keep your damn mouth shut about my religious beliefs or lack thereof? I don't attack you because youre religious, though I might feel that way, because I respect a persons right to follow, or not follow, any religion they want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack C then how a about a proposal where all of the godless types like you stay in a state and the state is funded only by godless taxpayers.

The founding fathers werent atheists and all of thewhite out in the world wont change the fact that god is in the declaration of indepence.

The people in uniform who protect the sorry a$$es of you atheists do so for God and country.

I'm so glad Navy Dave jr will be in Private school where this nonsense wont apply however if there ever was a reason for school vouchers this is it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, evil genius, those darned republican justices and their PC leanings are ruining the country. It's the same story every time. We really need to get rid of them.

Personally, I wonder why this is a case they chose to hear. I would have thought that this could be resolved locally and best not in a black and white sledgehammer type of ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just commenting on where the ruling came from.

Easy to pigeonhole the Dems or GOPers when a decision comes down. But the truth hurts sometimes when its revealed.

The real question I have is - which of the 3 (the 2 GOP appointed Judges or the 1 Dem appointed judge ruled against this)?

That man needs a raise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NavyDave,

No, they weren't atheists but they sure as hell realized how important freedom of religion was.

"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson

What I don't understand is how you can act like you're fu**ing better than atheists because you're chrisitian. There are tons of religions out there, and their followers are just as sure that there's are true as you are that yours is. You're different because ....? Have some damn respect for other people's belief. I respect people like OrangeSkin because while they strongly disagree with me, they make legitimate arguments while all you ever do is make a**hole statements and try and use the heavily conservative sentiment on this board to your advantage and to make yourself look good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by NavyDave

I say we put all butt pirates and like minded godless types like Ford HQ in one state and let them fend for themselves.

A State like California.

Where is Lex Luthor, an armed nuke an a bullseye on the San Andreas fault when you need it?

Kind of like the Taliban....now some things are starting to make sense thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...