Pledge of allegiance Madness

The 9th district court of appeals has just recently banned the pledge of allegiance in schools because it contains the word “God”. Apparently, this is in direct violation of the 1st amendment, which calls for a separation between church and state. Therefore, by reciting the pledge during school, the government is endorsing religion and thus violating the first amendment. One must wonder what type of leaf these judges are smoking because they are so off the wall it is pathetic (horrifying, inhumane, stupefying—in other words, there is no one word that described the sheer idiocy of this decision.)

The first amendment states in regards to religion, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” So the phrase “separation of church and state” is a dubious and unclear term that should not be used to describe the first amendment. The state can make no laws endorsing an establishment of religion. So a bill that says, “Christian good, atheist bad” can not be passed. Also, the government cannot pass a law making anglicanism the official religion of the country. This is what the first amendment says.

However, by including the phrase “under god”, “in god we trust”, or for that matter anything with the word god and nothing else, does not endorse religion in anyway. One can believe in god and reject religion (such as the unitarians.) Political commentators such as Bill Maher believe in this. He believes in God but not in established religion. So the word God in no way constitutes an endorsement of religion.

Also, if this logic is drawn out correctly, the entire consitution and reason for our country is unconstitional and void. The declaratation of independence says () “in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...”

The whole justification for our independence was based upon the idea that God creates certain inalliable writes which were the british government was violating. If the 9th district court of appeals logic is used, the declaration of independence should now be null and void because it constitutes an endorsement of religion which the constitution specifically prohibits. (AHHHHH)

BUT WAIT A MINUTE! An argument can be made that these justices themselves should be immediately thrown out. Why? Because they think unconstitutional the very oath upon which they took office. At the end of the oath of office the phrase “So help me God” is included. This, according to the court, is a violation of the constitution because the government is endorsing religion. So, extrapolating that out, they never meant to affirm the constitution in the first place and should be immediately thrown out.

If God were to appoint me emperor (which he wouldn’t because god does not want ANY emperor) I would have the two judges who agreed with this stand in the pits of hell forced to watch millions of school children repeat the phrase “under god” in a room made up completely with bibles. (In the other rooms of course would be Al Gore forced to watch an internal combustion engine to the end of time, Alan Dershowitz forced to eat flaming balls of fire from Bill Clintons no no land, and every member of CNN (minus a few) forced to listen to Ted Turner speak endlessly while Jane Fonda juggles loaded Viet Kong pistols.) But alas, that will not happen. I will have to settle for supreme court clarity on this issue.

Actually, in one sense, this is good news. It is indicative of the fools appointed to the Federal bench. I surmise, but do not know, that the clowns on the circuit in question are appointees of Clinton, Carter and the like. Notwithstanding, the American people quite possibly will react, as I have, to advise their elected officials and particularly the Daschle, Leahy and Kennedy branch of the Democrat party, that such interpretations of the original documents is so far off center, that to continue to appoint such intelletual trash to the bench is to denigrate what is an extremely important branch of governement.

Let us spite on the court with a NATIONWIDE, SIMULTANEOUS RECITAL of the Pledge of Allegiance on July 4th, 2002 at 8pm. Everyone attending community celebrations needs to be informed of the 8pm pause to show a HUGE MAJORITY of Americans still support the intent of the founding Fathers and will not tolerate Communist indoctrination against tradition.

ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Will it be us, or will it be the factionalists who are dividing our nation who decide? Without unity under a COMMON CAUSE, our nation will certainly crumble. Without common cause and heritage, any reason to defend our country or fight for it will be diminished. Those who do stand up will be branded as criminals, terrorists, and troublemakers if this is allowed to go any further.

Lets do the 4th of July Pledge and show unity!!

I surmise, but do not know, that the clowns on the circuit in question are appointees of Clinton, Carter and the like.

Logical, understandable, ...but untrue. The active judges consist of 14 Clinton and 3 Carter clowns, "balanced" by 3 Reagan and 4 Bush appointees. Clearly, more balance is needed. But this unholy piece of cr@p actually came from a Senior (retired) Nixon appointee, who actually is a military veteran.

Yes, he retired (accepted senior status) at full salary in 1991. But MANY retired judges come back to work on a part-time basis, like this senile old fool.

If you are curious, look here: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/OCELibra.nsf/504ca249c786e20f85256284006da7ab/b15667ee1d1bb2d98825682600823373?OpenDocument

FAST-FORWARDING TO A FUTURE NEAR YOU:

NINTH CIRCUIT RULES U.S. AN ILLEGAL ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION

United States Now Null And Void, Says Court

April 23, 2005 (AP) - The United States Ninth Circuit today ruled that the Declaration of Independence was promulgated on an unConstitutional establishment of religion in its use of such language as "the laws of nature and of nature's God ," "endowed by their Creator," "the Supreme Judge of the world," "the protection of Divine Providence," and "sacred honor."
As a result, the Declaration of Independence is null and void, based as it was on erroneous assumptions about where "unalienable rights" actually come from. Indeed, given the illegal invocation of a mythical "divine being", it is likely that such "rights" are now inoperable.
The Court has decided that herewith, the United States, severally and together, are now under the jurisdiction of the only "supreme judge of the world" and "protector" that can be found, the United Nations.
Speaking shortly after the ruling was handed down, U.N. General Secretary Bill Clinton announced that the U.N. is selling off the individual states one by one, in an auction on eBay commencing on Sunday of this week. The initial bids are expected to be high, as the states are considered one-of-a-kind collectibles.
Details will follow as they become available.

I have the disadvantage of being old enough to remember when the phrase " one nation under God " was added to the original Pledge.

If memory serves, it was during the Eisenhower administration, and a lot of folks thought it had a kind of smug, self-righteous ring to it; but said: " Aw, what the heck ! If it makes people happy, why not ? "

In those dark ages, before the "one nation" phrase was added,church/synagogue attendance was exceptionally high,patriotism, the doing of good deeds, etc. was fairly normal, and we were, in some respects, a little closer to being the sort of society many of you dream we could have again.

In my humble opinion, if we are not "one nation", and at least willing to pretend we are under a watchful divine eye,saying we are, during the Pledge of Allegiance isn't going to make it happen; any more than slapping a coat of whitewash on a tomb makes a graveyard a nice place to be.

... actually came from a Senior (retired) Nixon appointee, who actually is a military veteran ...

Thanks for the information. I'm also curious (an will look up) the entire decision. The Pledge of Allegaince has been debated and ruled upon before relative to Jehovah Witnesses and other Christian sects- I wonder how this decision compares with those previous.

I also recall when 'under God,' was added to the pledge and I remember an in class discussion about it. The Cold War was the over-riding reason that the phrase was added. The Soviet Union was rarely mentioned without adding 'Godless Nation' to define it. So, legislators and the White House wanted to make the distinction clear between the two nations, and you could say that it was a bit of domestic propaganda.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.