Posted on 05/15/2015 12:42:23 PM PDT by Elderberry
The Pledge of Allegiance is said at schools across America, every day. But a Judge in New Jersey, after hearing the arguments made by angry atheists, had to decide if the words “under God” violated the constitutional rights of atheist students. In one local school district, the lawsuit filed by the American Humanist Association, said the phrase promoted an environment of discrimination in class because it elevated religion and made the atheist students feel like “second-class citizens.”
However, State Superior Court Judge David F. Bauman was not happy with these frivolous arguments! The judge upheld a New Jersey law that says pupils must recite the Pledge of Allegiance unless they have “conscientious scruples” that do not allow it.
Quoting George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Dwight D. Eisenhower and the New Jersey Constitution, Bauman said the United States for centuries has woven small aspects of religion and references to God into its customs and traditions – not as an endorsement of any faith, but as an acknowledgement of the role religion played in the country’s founding.
“As a matter of historical tradition, the words ‘under God’ can no more be expunged from the national consciousness than the words ‘In God We Trust’ from every coin in the land, than the words ‘so help me God’ from every presidential oath since 1789, or than the prayer that has opened every congressional session of legislative business since 1787,” Bauman wrote in his decision.
“The pledge of allegiance, in this historical context, is not to be viewed, and has never been viewed, as a religious exercise,” Bauman wrote. Instead, the judge said, it was meant to promote the “core values of duty, honor, pride and fidelity to country on which the social contract between the United States and its citizens is ultimately based.”
And,
Bauman said even the New Jersey constitution included a reference to an “Almighty God.”
“Under plaintiffs’ reasoning, the very constitution under which plaintiffs seek redress for perceived atheistic marginalization could itself be deemed unconstitutional, an absurd proposition which plaintiffs do not and cannot advance here,” Bauman wrote, adding later: “Protecting students from viewpoints and ideas that may offend or upset them is not and has never been the role of public schools in America.”
“How long before Judge gets his IRS audit paperwork?”
Always be gracious and thank the fat, doughnut-munching, 50 IQ jellyfish squatting at their desks in the local IRS office for buying 1.2 billion rounds of ammo for your use.
Finally, a judge that gets it!
there is no comma, nor should the phrase be spoken with a pause.
The absurdly of modern Federal edicts from the bench only serve to demonstrate the corruption of those issuing them, and the out of check power of their office in enforcing such lawless edicts upon a free people.
As perhaps one of the best of their kin once pointed out. Every tyrant in the world has a “bill of rights” which they impose and ignore selectively according to the interest of their own ideological dispositions which they can then simply call “interpenetration”.
The only thing that makes a country and people free is the structure of power which limits the ambition and capability of men in the state to issue edicts regardless of their intent. This is done by the force of other men in competing positions to nullify said abuses when they don’t line up with the law as written. Thus making rule of law rather than the rule one group of men.
The position of judge of course came from the position of arbitrator where specific disputes in a particular case of law could be resolved. Not where law itself in general could be dictated only its application.
The Federal courts have over the centuries progressively corrupted and expanded this power using the concept of common law to dictate that all cases of law must be decided in the same way, thus establishing a standard of application which they then choose to ignore in radical ways that depart not only from the common understanding of the text but also their previous actions on the same law. Thus making them a legislator in practice. With lower courts still bound the the common law being the peons of their army of enforcers, and the written law(made by the real legislator) being otherwise meaningless.
This isn’t rule of law its rule of 9 federal employees in black robes, and without law there can be no freedom. Only the ever changing ‘moral’ or ideological discretion of those employees.
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.