Pledge Ruled Unconstitutional

Associated Press | June 26, 2002 | DAVID KRAVETS (Associated Press Writer)

[LoneGreenEyeshade]

God help us all.

[LoneGreenEyeshade]

In God We Trust

[LoneGreenEyeshade]

In God We Trust.....

[Draco]

The Ninth Circuit will decide to rehear the case "en banc" -- all judges will hear the case again and a majority of them will reverse the two left-wing censorists who penned this gem. You heard it hear first.

[Kevin Curry]

The Ninth Circuit will decide to rehear the case "en banc" -- all judges will hear the case again and a majority of them will reverse the two left-wing censorists who penned this gem.

Bummer, huh?

[goldstategop]

This just in --- the existence of the United State Of America is unconstitutional.

[Dec31,1999]

Stunning politicians on both the left and right, a federal appeals court declared for the first time Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional because of the words "under God" inserted by Congress in 1954.

Lie #1 in this piece: The left is overjoyed, not stunned. But don't get too comfortble with that. We'd be better off going along with the separation of church/mosque and state because if a link is established, it only paves the way for the Muslinazis to institute an Islamic state, which is why I disagree with Bush's faith-based federal programs.

Since one cannot discriminate among religions, taxpayers will be forced to subsidise the same progams for school children which have wrought the terrorist attacks of September Eleventh and the humicide bombings in Israel.

[blackbart.223]

"Michael A. Newdow, a Sacramento atheist, sued his daughter's Elk Grove school district".

Just another nitwit with too much time on his hands. There are other more pressing things to worry about these days.

[Kevin Curry]

The only reason the left-wing politicos are feigning outrage is because this is a very important election year. Control of Congress is at stake. They realize that in this post-9/11 world, the all-important squishy-middle swing voters will NOT like this decision, and the liberals are therefore desperate to distance themselves from it.

In their heart-of-hearts they are in complete sympathy with the the liberal loons on the 9th Curcuit and many atheist libertarian FReepers here.

[goldstategop]

Uh huh. We should ask the judges who proclaimed this idiotic decision, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of Al Qaeda?"

[Dec31,1999]

I don't think it's a good idea to support private schools with federal money. See it as a giveaway to the Muslims.

[MissAmericanPie]

I wonder if Dashel is going to be so proud now of blocking Bush's judical appointments. Fox News should make him eat crow on this.

[ladyinred]

Just read the man who wrote the opinion, had to come out of retirement because DasHOLE won't allow hearings on the 9th circuit appointees of President Bush! This is even more of an outrage!

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

I'm optimistic. This is the time to strike. Daschle, coming from a state that loves Bush, is blocking judicial appointments because they aren't liberal enough. And of all the times to look like like an ass, this was a very bad time for a liberal judge to do it.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Furthermore.... this is an argument that is difficult for the liberals to make. 'God' is a generic term. 'God' is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the Constitution itself. The liberals would actually have to amend the Constitution in order to remove the word 'God' from our schools, because God is mentioned there.

There is only one downside to this fight. If we fail to get outrage stirred up on this, then we will embolden the liberals like never before. They would be amazed at our lack of fighting spirit if they pull this off without a bloody nose.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Good point. Daschle needs to be asked what his stand is on this issue. And, he needs to be asked specific names of justices he would like to see appointed so we can look up their record and take a guess on how they stand on this.

He's been a sniper in the shadows for far too long. Let's burn his bunker and flush him out in the open.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Interesting. A retired judge now gets to cheery pick which trials he would like to rule on?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

er... cherry pick. [a bit rushed. time for work. be back this afternoon.]

[Jim Noble]

This case was logically and correctly decided according to the Supreme Court's line of "establishment clause" jurisprudence since 1948.

That line, of course, is wrong. The confusion arises over the fact that, in the mind of the sorts of people who become judges, the "free exercise of religion" must be a private, individual matter. Any non-private, non-individual "free exercise" is extinguished, in their minds, by the "make no law respecting an Establishment of religion" clause.

This is, of course, absurd. Religion has material non-private, non-individual functions. You cannot freely exercise the Christian religion, for example, without being a light unto the nations (among other things). This you cannot do from your bedroom closet.

It is my contention that the 49,997 folks praying the Lord's Prayer before a football game in New Mexico are precisely "freely exercising" their religion. I do not believe Congress may make a law requiring affirmation of religion-hence, a mandatory prayer or mandatory pledge would, in my view, be unconstitutional.

But the proscription of public free exercise that makes someone else feel bad is impossibly intrusive and tyrannical, especially if the "someone else" is one person. Allowing this type of veto over the community's free exercise is impermissibly restrictive upon the free exercise clause.

The plaintiff in these "cases" is almost always motivated by some type of neurosis. Imagine yourself as an exchange student in Israel. Would you "feel bad" if, at sunset on Friday, you noticed that most commercial activity stopped? As a tourist in Turkey, does the call to prayer of the muezzin from the turret of a mosque make you upset? When visiting Tokyo, does the line of people waiting to deposit written prayers at a shrine to the Enlightened One make you feel rejected?

Not if you are normal, it doesn't. The courts cannot change (hopefully) the fact that the vast majority of Americans are adherents of the Christian religion, It is normal, natural, and healthy that they should freely exercise this religion repeatedly, and in public.

It's time to revive the free exercise clause.