THE LORD IS OUTLAWED? HEY, WHY STOP THERE?

New York Post ^ | 6/27/02 | ANDREA PEYSER

[kattracks]

Our vulnerable schoolchildren, whose self-esteem has long been threatened by the forced learning of such culturally biased concepts as writing and reading, are suffering yet another blow to basic human rights: the Pledge of Allegiance.

Turns out that reciting the Pledge isn't just a mindless salute to a society founded on the subjugation of indigenous peoples, as a school board on Manhattan's wacky Upper West Side declared last year. The Pledge is far more insidious.

[evad]

What is this "establishment clause" in the constitution this a$$hole keeps speaking about.

[Bama_Fren]

Have you any idea when the public school system started rejecting God? I realize now how the school system has tried to undo what families worked so hard teaching children at home. Even going as far to make the children believe they are being taught wrong, no discipling by parents.
No wonder children are so confused.

[Bama_Fren]

"In God We Trust" it says right there on the greenback.

Those judges are probably working behind the scene to replace money with "In Gov. We Trust".

[Stirner]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" From the First Amendment. "respecting" here merely means "about". The founders were concerned to prevent any religion from becoming the official religion, mandated by the government (as was common in Europe at that time).

[smith288]

Im just so lost about this. If i moved to Turkey and they pledged every morning to the nation and allah (keep in mind they have a secular govt but very muslem nation), I would have no problems in simply not pledging. Or just not say the part about allah. Separation of church and state doesnt mean freedom from religion. I have heard it time and time again that schools teach that homosexuality is ok, that oral sex is safer than actually doing it and that our forefathers were a bunch of racist slave owners.

One mention of an ambiguous God that can be applied to about every sect of society (be it Darwin, Christianity, Judaism or Islam), and the smallest group of people raise hell like they are the voice of America and the thinkers behind the Constitution.

Im sick. Im sick and tired of these Godless zealots who claim this nation should be free of anything sacred to the hearts of the many. If this stands I am afraid for my children and their children. I am afraid for the persecution they will recieve for praising a God that is so merciful and forgiving. A God that even forgives these Godless zealots who want to rid this great nation of the very creator of it.

I dont know how God could just sit there and let them go on...I guess thats why he is God and im not. Otherwise there would be frogs and blood running through the rivers.

[evad]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" From the First Amendment. "respecting" here merely means "about". The founders were concerned to prevent any religion from becoming the official religion, mandated by the government (as was common in Europe at that time).

I understood this part...I just never had heard the first ammendment referred to as have an "establishment clause". I guess this is a legal term that has developed over time.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Kermit]

What gets me is that the liberals/lefties choke on a gnat, while swallowing the camel whole. They worry about the "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, while public schools themselves are the establishment of religion complete with sacrifices (taxes), temples (school buildings) and religious rites (graduation ceremonies). I still wish for some smart lawyer to take this on and shut down public schools. Maybe we could get our educational freedom and parental rights back.

[dwbh1342]

Im just so lost about this. If i moved to Turkey and they pledged every morning to the nation and allah (keep in mind they have a secular govt but very muslem nation), I would have no problems in simply not pledging. Or just not say the part about allah.

Although you have the freedom to not say the "under God" or not say the pledge at all, it's a question of coercion. Why should you be ostracized for saying you believe in God, when that might not be the case? On the other hand, if everyone says the pledge without the words "under God," you're not compelling anyone to say something they don't believe.

Separation of church and state doesnt mean freedom from religion. I have heard it time and time again that schools teach that homosexuality is ok, that oral sex is safer than actually doing it and that our forefathers were a bunch of racist slave owners.

Yes, but all of those things are separate from stating your religious belief. If someone wanted you to say the pledge, replacing the words "under God" with "without God," would you do it?

One mention of an ambiguous God that can be applied to about every sect of society (be it Darwin, Christianity, Judaism or Islam), and the smallest group of people raise hell like they are the voice of America and the thinkers behind the Constitution.

As far as I know, it's just one lawyer in Sacramento who's doing this. A few liberal fringe groups are getting behind him now, but that's to be expected and it's after the fact of the ruling. The "ambiguous God" you mentioned can definitely not be accepted by atheists, who believe there is no divine force to be "under."

Im sick. Im sick and tired of these Godless zealots who claim this nation should be free of anything sacred to the hearts of the many. If this stands I am afraid for my children and their children. I am afraid for the persecution they will recieve for praising a God that is so merciful and forgiving. A God that even forgives these Godless zealots who want to rid this great nation of the very creator of it.

Why are you afraid for your children? Assuming the ruling stands, and it's applied to other districts after the Supremes uphold it (which is a longshot, BTW), your children will just say the same pledge without the words "under God." Or they'll exercise their freedom of speech and say it with "under God" anyway. Or they won't be made to say it at all. Or you'll take your kids to private school or homeschool them, if you really feel that strongly about it. Religion begins at the home, not at school, and it's sustained in the church, not at school. If you're counting on secular institutions to reinforce your religious beliefs for your kids, you're barking up the wrong tree.

[anymouse]

Although I find this Apealate Judge's action abhorant to our national identity and pride, we will survive this, because we are "one nation under God, indevisable, with liberty for all."

All this judge is doing is illustrating that the Constitution works. That the checks and balances between the three branches of federal government allows for even extreme disagreement between the different branches, without undermining the power and respect of each branch. And when the Supreme Court overturns this "rediculous" (but legally binding) ruling of the Appealate Court, then that too will show the wisdom of our founding fathers in not instilling too much power even in lifetime appointed judges.

So like SCOTUS' ruling in the 2000 Presidential election, this painful and farcical ruling shows that a constitutional republic is far superior to other forms of government, where power corrupts. After all we have "a government of (the rule of) laws, not of men" - even dumb laws like this.

[smith288]

You are dillusional. Im afraid for my children because this is a slippery slope that is sure to attack every other reference to faith in our society. They will attack the Constitution, attack our money, attack the very fiber of our nations inception. If it stands it sounds very innocent. But where does it stop? Does having a religious rally on a street count as "Public" street and a govt owned street shouldnt allow this acitvity since it is a specific religion?

I dont believe this nation is based on "liberty and justice for all" anymore, and I can choose not to say it as well. This pledge is not a national crisis and the courts shouldnt be wasting their time on such mundane issues. I said this pledge when I was younger and I at the time had no real faith. I later recieved Christ at the age of 21. It didnt direct me to God nor did it indoctrinate me. Hell, I didnt even know what i was saying. So this guy, who is obviously militantly atheist, is using his own daughter ot further his agenda to tear apart a tradition and foundation we were built on.

[serinde]

I just never had heard the first ammendment referred to as have an "establishment clause".

You never heard it because it doesn't. The phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't appear in the Constitution at all. If I remember correctly, it comes from a letter written by Jefferson. The goal of the 1st amendment is to prevent the govt. from forcing a particular religion on American citizens, not to keep religion out of govt. The entire concept of "separation" is a lie used by liberals to demean and eliminate Christianity from our country.

[Tourist Guy]

>>>while public schools themselves are the establishment of religion<<

Indeed. It's called Secular Humanism already acknowledged by the USSC in the 1970's as a bona fide religion.

[ravingnutter]

I told hubby last night that conservatives have been way too lenient with these God-hating liberals for years...just think what would happen to them if they tried to go to a Muslim country and eradicate Allah...

[dwbh1342]

You are dillusional. Im afraid for my children because this is a slippery slope that is sure to attack every other reference to faith in our society.

No, this is just applicable to reciting the pledge in public schools, where references to faith are rightfully barred. Separation of church and state mandates that the existence of God not be taught in public schools. They're not teaching that there isn't a God, and they're not teaching that there is a God.

They will attack the Constitution, attack our money, attack the very fiber of our nations inception. If it stands it sounds very innocent. But where does it stop? Does having a religious rally on a street count as "Public" street and a govt owned street shouldnt allow this acitvity since it is a specific religion?

"They" -- and I assume you mean the godless commies that Eisenhower added these words to protect us from -- are powerless to do any such thing. As I said above, this doesn't apply to your freedom of speech. The court ruling syays that they hold the 1954 act that added the words "under God" to the pledge, as well as the policy of teacher-led recitation of this version of the pledge, unconstitutional. You can still hold religious rallies and say the Pledge of Allegiance with "under God" as many times as you like, and nobody will arrest you.

How does this attack the Constitution? How does this attack our money? How is this a slippery slope that attacks our nation's inception?

I dont believe this nation is based on "liberty and justice for all" anymore, and I can choose not to say it as well. This pledge is not a national crisis and the courts shouldnt be wasting their time on such mundane issues.

Obviously, it's mot a mundane issue to us, because we're arguing about it. And it's not mundane to the other people here who've started about 100 different threads on it in less than a day. It's important for the court to make a stand and declare whether these things endorse religion in the schools or not.

I said this pledge when I was younger and I at the time had no real faith. I later recieved Christ at the age of 21. It didnt direct me to God nor did it indoctrinate me. Hell, I didnt even know what i was saying. So this guy, who is obviously militantly atheist, is using his own daughter ot further his agenda to tear apart a tradition and foundation we were built on.

How do you know that he's using his daughter? Perhaps she feels the same way as he does. I declared myself an atheist when I was nine, and I refused to say the "under God" part of the pledge myself. I later converted to Christianity, but at the time, I had to deal with nasty stares from the rest of the class and the teacher, just because I refused to state something I didn't believe. Why should kids deal with that kind of peer pressure when they don't have to?

[dwbh1342]

while public schools themselves are the establishment of religion complete with sacrifices (taxes), temples (school buildings) and religious rites (graduation ceremonies).

Problem is, the school system cannot be mistaken for a divine power. Just because an institution has rituals and requirements does not mean it is being worshipped.

[Kermit]

Do you think some smart lawyer will sue on this basis?

[Dementon]

If I remember correctly, it comes from a letter written by Jefferson.

You are correct. He was saying something to the effect of: The wall separating church and state should be a one way barrier. Government should not interfere in religion, but religion should never be removed from government.

I'll see if I can find the actual quote.

[smith288]

Gimme a break. I didnt say the pledge a bunch of time in school mainly because i was still asleep. No one sat and watched every kid and then took the kind into a secret room if they didnt say and pointed a light on their face asking if they are a commie or not.

There has never been a law of separation of church and state for one. Its is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion." Tell me where it says which religion the peldge is respecting? You cant. You wont find it.

The issue is mundane to our nation but important in that the 9th cir ct has decided to legislate by the bench. They have decided to make or break laws based on thier kooky idea of what is and what is not Constitutional.

This is a reason why America needs to look what is going on. Liberals on the bench, striking long standing laws challenged by people who use their kids as tools to advance their thinking.

Look the complainer up. Do some research, you will notice he had a case against money before his daughter was born. He is bitter, he is a mental case and looking for fame.

[Kevin Curry]

The founders were concerned to prevent any religion from becoming the official religion, mandated by the government (as was common in Europe at that time).

Not quite.

The founders intended to prohibit only the federal government from establishing a religion. States were free to do whatever they wished. In fact, the establishment clause was an express denial of power to the federal government to interfere in any way, shape, or fashion in state decisions about religion. Massachussets stilla had a state religion well into the 19th Century.

Whether one believes official state religions are a good or bad idea is beside the point. The original intent of the First Amendment was to force the federal government into a straitjacketed neutrality. The federal government's active hostility to religion is a recent invention hatched from the minds of atheists and civil libertarians (but I repeat myself).