OT Pledge of Allegiance
 

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!:mad:













SAN FRANCISCO — The Pledge of Allegiance is an
unconstitutional endorsement of religion and
cannot be recited in public schools, a federal
appeals court ruled Wednesday.

In its ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 1954 act of Congress
that inserted the phrase "under God" after the phrase "one nation" in the pledge.

"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 court, in the nation's first ruling of its kind, said that when President Eisenhower
signed the 1954 legislation, he wrote that "millions of our school children 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 the
appeals panel said that classroom pledges, regardless of whether a student
participates, are unconstitutional and an "unacceptable choice between participating
and protesting."

"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
Unified School District.

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

But the appelate court says it may reasonably appear to an atheist or a believer in
certain non-Judeo-Christian religions or philosophies to be an attempt to impose
monotheism on students.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

:mad: :mad: :(
It's sad, and yet it angers me to see members of our justice system so mentally and morally twisted and shallow.
marc

10-1 it will be overturned.

Actually - as usual - catmando is talking out of the "other" orifice. Try reading the Constitution sometime, along with the Federalist papers and other comtemporary documents, and you might be able to see what the Establishment clause actually says. Hint - it's in English.

But, since plain language typically escapes the lefty crowd, let me explain. The First Amendment reads:

Seems fairly plain to me, but let me spell it out just in case... According to the First Amendment, Congress is prohibited from passing a law forcing you to worship in a particular way, i.e. it can't pass a law saying that Roman Catholicism is the "official" religion of the United States. Viewed in its historical context, it is pretty obvious that the intent was to prevent a repeat of the religious presecution and other assorted nastiness that occurred in England, where the Anglican church was the "official" religion.

Also note that the First Amendment only prohibits the United States Congress from passing such legislation - at the time, most states had an official religion of some sort or another, and that was perfectly legal, as the states are reserved all rights not expressly given to the federal government (another grand idea that has been crapped all over in these enlightened times :rolleyes: )

The idea that the intent of the First Amendment was to remove all references to religion from the public sphere is ludicrous on its face - "separation of church and state" is fantasy dreamed up by an activist judiciary, one that seems to think they can and should legislate from the bench. This latest ruling is yet another glaring example of this trend - and a reason that Congress should exercise its right to impeach and remove such judicial legislators - but that is another pipe dream, since all 435 Congress critters put together have about 1 1/3 backbones. On a good day....

Some reference works, including the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, etc, may be found here:

http://www.townhall.com/documents/

OOOOOppppSSSSS, forgot this little part of the Bill of Rights:

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


So your statement is incorrect.....Constitutionally speaking.

Since when did it become "Politically Correct" for the minority to rule???? Too Old posted in the other thread that if put to a vote the ruling would be overturned. I concur with him on that post 100%. I believe in freedom of choice, that is something of great importance in this still "GREAT" country. While we may not all agree on issues at hand, why is it of such great importance to belittle and degrade those who do not adhere to ones own belief system. The Pledge lawsuit is one persons way of exercising his right to voice his opinion about his belief. If the majority of the people agree with this then so be it. On the other hand if only a small percentage are receptive to the idea, why should said issue be set as precedent to be adhered to by the populous majority??? It is of reasonable concern that some are so self consumed with their own personal agendas that they are not willing to respect anothers freedom of choice. Is it not reasonable that if the majority desires to uphold the Pledge, that others give consideration and not habour ill content as to persecute decisions and beliefs of others???? Our country is the greatest on this planet. There will always be debates on political and religious beliefs, but how they are debated is what seperates us from third world countries. Let us not forget that we are a civilized nation, one nation under GOD, and we should give respect and consideeration to our neighbors and fellow man, even though we may not be in agreement with them.

Congrats CMan...you are now guilty of what you charge all of us with. Having a different opinion forced on you.

Its too bad that you have been so blinded by the desire to have your right exercised that you failed to recognize MY right to stand up and say..."One Nation Under God..." As I said on the other post, It is funny how someone who places no meaning in the word "god" is so offended by the use of a meaningless word.

BTW, chaplains are in both the Congress and the military NOT because they are required, but because they are desired. It is your right to NOT visit with a chaplain or to pray while others do, but it is their right TO pray or recite the Pledge...so stop with the two-faced rhetoric.