Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vanity: The Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional - If That Doesn't Convince You What Will?
June 26, 2002 | Jim Robinson

Posted on 06/26/2002 11:48:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

This is your wake-up call

My friends, I've been taking a lot of flak lately because of my stand on President Bush and the Republicans. Well, my thinking is that the coming elections are so critical that the very continuation of America as we know it may be at stake.

All of our institutions are controlled by liberals. Both houses of Congress are awash in liberals and socialists and moderates and very few conservatives. The Courts are infested with liberal activist judges. Our media and entertainment industries are overrun by liberals. Our universities are overrun by liberals. Our public education systems are overrun by liberals. The liberals control public opinion through their controlled nightly news programs and their daily liberal newspapers. My God, the whole damn country is run by hordes of mushy headed liberals and socialists in biblical proportions! And now they even have the audacity to openly attack patriotism and even God Almighty Himself!

A United States Federal Appeals Court in California has declared the

Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional! And this simply because it contains the phrase, "Under God." I'm speechless! I just sit here and shake my head. Don't even know what to say.

Wake up America! We've been saying that for years. The far right-wingers have been shouting it for decades. Wake up America! Wake up America, the socialists are coming!

And now it's here. The Republic is in grave danger. The liberal activist judiciary has tested the waters. If America does not wake up and not only say no, but hell no to this abomination, then what will the emboldened court take next? Well, I don't know about you, but I'm not gonna sit around on my butt doing nothing while we find out.

Call to action: Get off your Butts! Call or write your reps! Voice your opinion. Demand that they do something about this. Tell them that America will not allow this outrage to stand! Demand of your Senators that they move President Bush's judiciary appointments through the Senate! The Democrat controlled Senate is holding up his appointments, hoping to delay as many as they possibly can until Bush appoints judges more to their liking, or possibly even until they can get Gore or Hillary elected in 2004. God forbid!

And, I'm convinced more than ever, that we must have a complete turnover of the judiciary in the next decade. This is critical. The liberal activist judiciary is getting more and more aggressive. If we do not get some conservative judges in there pretty soon, this game is going to be over.

How do we get conservative judges? Well, I can guarantee you that we will not get them as long as the Senate is controlled by Democrats. We must have a Republican President to appoint conservative judges and we must have a Republican majority so they will be moved through the Senate. This is one of the primary reasons why I want to push so hard to help elect Republicans to the Congress and especially to the Senate. And this is why I want to push so hard to help re-elect President Bush in 2004.

Wake up America! And wake up right-wingers! Vote out the Democrats. Vote in a huge Republican majority so we can retake America from the liberals!

We cannot afford a loss or even a squeaker in the next couple of elections. We must have Reaganesque landslides! Send them to Washington with a mandate from the American people! We want a complete turnover and makeover of the judiciary and all of the government. Give is back our Liberty!

This is not the time for sending a negative message. It does us no good for conservatives to sit on their hands or to vote third party. The only message that sends is to say you don't care if we have wall-to-wall liberals forever. The Democrats will love you. The liberal activist judiciary will love you.

The message you should send is one by pen and ink, or by phone calls and personal meetings. Send a message now to your congressmen and to the Republican Party. Now is the time to send the message. Tell them what we want them to run on and what we want them to do when they get in there. Send them a positive message filled with patriotism and love for God and Country. Tell them that we are fed up with the liberals and we want our country back and we want our rights back. Tell your relatives and your friends and neighbors. Tell them to write and call and visit. And tell them to vote for the Republican in their districts. We must do this if we want it back. We cannot afford to fail.

God bless you all and thank you for bearing with me. I love my country and I love my freedom more than life itself. I don't care what anyone says about me, or what labels they pin on me. From this day forward I am a Bush-bot and proud of it! I am going to help turn this thing around or I'm going down in flames trying.

FReegards,

Jim Robinson



TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Breaking News; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: god; northcarolina; oldnorthstate; pledge; unconstitutional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 521-529 next last
To: Le-Roy
Your assumptions are completely ridiculous. Voluntarily reciting the Pledge of Alligence at school, which merely generically acknowledges the existence of a God, does not establish a state religion. Refusing to allow students the right to recite the Pledge of Alligance in school would be violating their free speech rights. Why do you believe that a student's free speech rights are not legitimate within the setting of school walls?

Refusing the right of students to acknowledge the existence of a God in school and the honor of pledging their loyalty to God and country, would be a prime example of government being an adversary of religion and religious expression.

By the way, you forget to mention the Free Exercise Clause in your quote.

441 posted on 06/27/2002 11:54:49 AM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: VaBthang4
Okay, I'm over it...now are you gonna help?

Sincere thanks for your service.

442 posted on 06/27/2002 11:58:04 AM PDT by A Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: BraveMan
All the more reason to start foaming at the mouth . . .

Naw; that just makes you look sloppy. ;^)
I did send a couple of notes to their comment email, so it will be interesting to see what they reply, if anything.

443 posted on 06/27/2002 12:09:02 PM PDT by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: Le-Roy
"Congress shall make no law...".

Yes, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

WADR, what religion is being established by the word "God" in the Pledge?

Careful, this is a trick question.

444 posted on 06/27/2002 12:13:03 PM PDT by Chairman_December_19th_Society
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
I think the Civil War settled that argument, didn't it?

   Hardly. According to the original document agreed to, any state (or collection of states) had every right to withdraw their assocation. The resentment against an overbearing, power-grabbing federal gummint is still very much a reality.

I understood what I was saying. I've also tried to explain it to my classes.

   Cognizance/comprehension was not the thrust of my question. How often did you actually think about those words, that affirmation, as you were saying them? How often was it actually a positive affirmation as opposed to rote recitation?

445 posted on 06/27/2002 12:31:49 PM PDT by Le-Roy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: Chairman_December_19th_Society
Careful, this is a trick question.

   Which I have answered previously; it does not 'establish' any religion, but it most certainly 'respects' (or favors) a particular flavor of religion.

446 posted on 06/27/2002 12:35:14 PM PDT by Le-Roy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
   Man, you just can't help yourself, can you? Where have I ever said I was against voluntary recitation? Where did I ever state that such 'establish[ed] a state religion'? Where have I ever advocated refusing to allow (allow, not force) recitation (therefore rendering your next assumption all the more ludicrous)?
447 posted on 06/27/2002 12:39:42 PM PDT by Le-Roy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
BUMP to your post #73...and #109...and #138. The fact is that those who vote Republican no matter what cannot make the case that "winning on compromise" is actually winning. Perhaps if more people had the intestinal fortitude to say, "Support the Constitution, or you're not getting my vote," we might start to see some change in the GOP. Unfortunately, moderate-to-liberal Republican candidates will continue to thrive because they know that "conservatives" are safely within the GOP fold and would never stray, lest they incur the wrath of the rest of the flock. As long as people believe they are limited to choosing between the lesser of two evils, evil is exactly what they'll get.
448 posted on 06/27/2002 12:44:53 PM PDT by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Le-Roy
but it most certainly 'respects' (or favors) a particular flavor of religion.

Again - which one?

Caution - still a trick question.

449 posted on 06/27/2002 12:49:57 PM PDT by Chairman_December_19th_Society
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

To: Le-Roy
How often was it actually a positive affirmation as opposed to rote recitation?

Apparently you agree with the 9th Circuit that students should not say the Pledge of Allegiance in school. I think they should.

I think it's good for students to be reminded, if only for a few seconds each day, that they live in the greatest nation on Earth, that the nation was founded on principles of God-given rights to all people, and that all people in the United States have the same rights of liberty and justice.

I'll grant you that all of our national documents - including the Pledge of Allegiance - are somewhat idealistic, and sometimes we and our government don't live up to the standards set by our Founding Fathers. But I still think it's good for students to be reminded daily of those ideals.

I also agree with JimRob that, while we aren't likely to immediately return our nation to a Perfect Constitutional state, the next election is very important, and we need to vote for the best possible choice - meaning the best choice who has a likely chance of winning.

There are a few maxims that could be quoted for this situation; some will choose "the lesser of two evils is still evil", but I think in this case a more appropriate one would be "all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing".

If we don't vote, or if we vote for third party choices who have no chance of winning, we'll have in effect done nothing, and the liberals WILL win. Right now, keeping them from winning is the important thing.

450 posted on 06/27/2002 12:50:22 PM PDT by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
If we don't vote, or if we vote for third party choices who have no chance of winning, we'll have in effect done nothing, and the liberals WILL win. Right now, keeping them from winning is the important thing.

Amen. (Can I still say that?!) Well said!

451 posted on 06/27/2002 12:53:40 PM PDT by Chairman_December_19th_Society
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: Chairman_December_19th_Society
Again, I have answered this previously; it favors the western, Judeo-Christian heritage. Do you really believe children are sophisticated enough to discern and accept the nuances between 'god', 'great spirit', 'allah', 'jehovah', 'buddha', etc., etc., etc.? And before we continue this little charade, can you assure me personally that you yourself would not be offended were someone in your presence to substitute the word 'allah' in the Pledge, or to publicly lead a prayer dedicated to 'lucifer, god of light'?
452 posted on 06/27/2002 12:55:32 PM PDT by Le-Roy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: Le-Roy
I have answered this previously; it favors the western, Judeo-Christian heritage.

What about Islam? Same God.

Then again, what about any of the innumerable Indian culture religious beliefs that accepted monotheistic thinking. They accept a supreme being - a god.

Believe your notion is on shaky ground, but you are entitled to your opinion.

I don't share it.

453 posted on 06/27/2002 1:02:21 PM PDT by Chairman_December_19th_Society
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
Apparently you agree with the 9th Circuit that students should not say the Pledge of Allegiance in school.

   Apparently you have a problem with reading comprehension -- neither myself or the 9th Circuit Court have said any such thing.

for students to be reminded daily of those ideals

   How will that happen if they see minority beliefs/rights being trumped/trampled by the majority? Such a thing is completely contrary to Constitutional ideals.

all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing

   Such as, when being offered a choice of two evils, to continue to allow others to dictate the rules of the game? Continuing to send the message that, 'stripping the flesh from my bones and pouring alcohol in the wounds is acceptable...so long as it is done slowly, and with the illusion that I might eventually, someday, have some say in whether it ever stops'? Ya mean, that kind of 'doing nothing'?

454 posted on 06/27/2002 1:03:58 PM PDT by Le-Roy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: Le-Roy
And before we continue this little charade, can you assure me personally that you yourself would not be offended were someone in your presence to substitute the word 'allah' in the Pledge, or to publicly lead a prayer dedicated to 'lucifer, god of light'?

On the first point - I am not going into that trap. I have far more faith in our children's ability to understand nuances than you apparently are willing to ascribe, but I guess that is a difference between us. (BTW - yes, I have kids.) The notion on the table for debate is does the word "God" in the Pledge establish a religion. The mere fact that the word God is specifically the province of three monotheistic religions (though, yes, one does use the word Allah, Arabic for "God") on its face shows that no religion is being established. In fact, by your own admission, you say "Judeo/Christian" already conceding thtat there are two religions that ascribe to "God," so how can we be "establishing"? Of course, we are not.

On the second point, if some person wanted to publicly lead a prayer dedicated to Lucifer, that is their right of free speech. I would simply ignore it, though I would probably find it a little wierd. In short, that is a free speech question, not an establishment question. (Which is why the Supreme Court is wrong on the whole prayer by the football team thing awhile back - but that's another whole debate I'm not going into now.)

455 posted on 06/27/2002 1:10:18 PM PDT by Chairman_December_19th_Society
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: Chairman_December_19th_Society
What about Islam? Same God.

Boy, would I love to have more of the bush-bot fundies see that post! Also, does that mean that you wouldn't personally have a cow, or a case of the vapors, were someone to substitute 'allah', or little bo peep, in the Pledge? After all, if it's all the same 'god', what does it matter at all what someone calls it? Right? You and I know that it ultimately all refers to the same 'Creator', but there's a whole lot of folks (the majority of this country, evidently) who would take up arms tomorrow were the official phrase 'under Allah'...now, wouldn't they?

456 posted on 06/27/2002 1:10:28 PM PDT by Le-Roy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Bravo Jim! I couldn't agree more! Let's make this the last straw as we battle these liberal/socialist/anti-americans down to the last gasp we have !

BobfromNJ
457 posted on 06/27/2002 1:14:22 PM PDT by BobFromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chairman_December_19th_Society
The notion on the table for debate is does the word "God" in the Pledge establish a religion.

   But that is not the question that matters. The question is one of intent - does a state-mandated, state-run institution requiring a pledge which includes the phrase 'under God' constitute a violation of the principle expressed by the phrase 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' IOW, does it respect an establishment of religion, and, if it does, does it fall under the jurisdiction of that phrase?

In both instances, the answer is 'yes', unless you want to play Monty Python, and wink & nod, wink & nod, say no more, eh? as long as it fits with your own personal philosophy/belief system.

Again, this would all be a moot point if we managed to completely divorce the state (euphemism for fed-gov) from any involvement in education.

Btw, I will commend you for your views on the hypothetical prayer, and for recognizing that, at its most fundamental (carefule with that word, there), the concept of 'god' encompasses all the various names by which people have come to describe it.

458 posted on 06/27/2002 1:19:24 PM PDT by Le-Roy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: BobFromNJ
The big lie...fraud-hoax---

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality--UNDER GOD...the nature of man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values GROWTH!

Then came the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer---UNDER STATE/SATAN...Atheist secular materialists through evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations(separation of state/religion)--TRUTH-GOD...made these absolutes relative and calling all the residuals---technology/science === evolution to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...anti-God/Truth RELIGION--crusade!

Liberals/Evolution BELIEVE they are the conservatives--guardians too...

the shield between state and religion(evolution/atheism) is gone---this is chernobyl---radiation poisoning!!

Hypnotism--witchcraft ideology--politics--religion--BRAINWASHING--superstition--BIAS---EVOLUTION

ps...evolutionism is the essence of liberalism/socialism!

Basically...to summarize we have an established religion---ATHEISM...a monopoly forbidding the freedom of speech-thought(pc brainwashing)-religion!

459 posted on 06/27/2002 1:20:22 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: Le-Roy
, does that mean that you wouldn't personally have a cow, or a case of the vapors, were someone to substitute 'allah', or little bo peep, in the Pledge?

Again, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about whether there is state establishment of a religion with the word "God" in the Pledge. There is not for the reasons I stated.

Your argument is not on point.

But just to amuse you, what someone says regarding the Pledge, or doesn't say, has already been addressed by the Supreme Court. Someone could simply stay silent - the court said so in 1943.

Presumably, someone could also insert whatever the heck they wanted to during the exercise. That is an issue of SPEECH, not religion or establishment.

Would I have a cow, no. If someone wants to avoid being simply thought of a fool by opening their mouth and removing all doubt, that is their perogative.

Similary, it is the perogative of the majority, through their elected officials, to create a Pledge of Allegance for our flag and Nation that seeks to acknowledge the existence of some higher power - call it what you will, but "God" seems a good choice, however. Since there is no establishment, it becomes a political decision of a non-judicial branch of government, the legislature - something even the Ninth Circuit in their decision said they were not empowered to enter.

But it didn't stop them. And that is the problem.

460 posted on 06/27/2002 1:23:41 PM PDT by Chairman_December_19th_Society
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 521-529 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson