What is Going On in CALIFORNIA? - The Organizational Roots of the "Separation of Church and State".

Comments?

Good post. Thanks for doing the research.

bump for later

vann ROCKS!

Maybe them earthquakes have loosened all them bolts and NUTS.

I'm a financial contributor to Jay Sekulow's "American Center for Law and Justice", which accepts cases pro bono dealing with violations of religious freedom. I'm waiting for an email from his group on how they plan to fight this.

You could not find a more idiotic, incompetent and destructive group of individuals in a street gang.

The 9th US Circus Court of Appeals is in one of San Francisco's premiere socialist neighborhoods. There are crack dealers, hookers, paroled sex offenders, beggars, crazy people walking around, the socialist prototype for future America. I suspect crack is falling into the soup in one of the nearby restaurants.

BUMP

One must keep in mind, that the reasoning in law is supposed to be based in logic. If the line of logic is followed, with only one eye, any given point has some degree of relevance with any other point. By totally excluding all factors except those which prove your point, it is possible to argue that "freedom OF religion" eventually means "freedom FROM religion", and that any and all references to a supernatural Supreme Being is therefore religion.

Two lines of reasoning came together here. One is that the Pledge of Allegiance has now become a prayer, simply because the words, "under God", have been included. The other is that, because schools are an agency by extension of the Federal government, that reference to God must be expressly forbidden.

But a wholly different outcome is that since school children may no longer pledge allegiance, they cannot declare their loyality and fidelity to the principles that bind the United States into one nation.

Was it not bad enough that the World Trade Center was knocked down? Must the rest of America be made meaningless as well? The US Flag is what brought us together that day, and denying ANYBODY the right to declare their love of country (by denying the Pledge of Allegiance as a legitimate expression of that belief) is to surrender to the external forces who clearly do NOT love the flag.

Man who sued to stop pledge explains reasons for suit

(06-26) 17:42 PDT ELK GROVE, Calif. (AP) --

Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow said Wednesday he was trying to restore the Pledge of Allegiance to its pre-1954 version because no one should be forced to worship a religion in which they don't believe.

But if the threatening messages on his answering machine are any indication, the American public is not thanking him.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Wednesday the phrase "one nation under God" amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the separation of church and state and can no longer be recited in schools.

The decision was denounced as "ridiculous" by a wide range of people, from President Bush to parents of children who attend Florence Markofer Elementary School, the Elk Grove school where Newdow's daughter was a 2nd-grader.

Newdow, a Sacramento emergency room doctor, said in an interview that "Congress never intended to force people to worship a religion that they don't believe in" when they added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.

But Elk Grove parent Kathleen Doncaster, whose daughter attends the school said the Pledge of Allegiance isn't promoting religion.

"It's about being American. He needs to get a hobby," she said.

While Newdow expected the lawsuit would generate some controversy, he said he didn't expect the media attention or the threatening phone calls he experienced Wednesday.

Even though his daughter wasn't forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, it was wrong to require her to listen to it when she doesn't believe in it, he said.

A statement from the Elk Grove Unified School District Wednesday said it is disappointed with the decision by the court and plans to take "appropriate appellate action either by petitioning the Supreme Court of the United States of requesting an en banc hearing before the Ninth District."

Until then, teachers and students will continue to recite the Pledge of Allegiance until school administrators ask them not to, said Cheryl Hollis, chapter president of the Elk Grove Education Association that represents district teachers.

"I expect this will be a much challenged and difficult change," she said. "Following 9-11, there are very strong feelings from families about allegiance to America, and there is such diversity in our schools, it will be a difficult change."

Elk Grove is a rapidly growing Sacramento County community of 80,000 people, many of whom are state government or high-tech industry workers. Of the area school system's 40,000 students, 58 percent are minorities.

The school system also draws the sons and daughters of agriculture industry workers who live in the countryside outside the city limits.

Newdow said he is not worried about further action against his case, and should it reach the Supreme Court, he still plans to represent himself, saying, "I have done OK so far."

Still, Newdow said his family and his daughter have been threatened because of the lawsuit. He refused to discuss his daughter, saying only that she was "in a safe place." He also wouldn't say if he was married.

He wouldn't characterize the threats he received, saying only that they were "personal and scary. I could be dead tomorrow.

"Many people who are upset about this are people who just don't understand," he said, sipping fruit punch at his kitchen table. "People have to consider what if they were in the minority religion and the majority religion was overpowering them.

"Justice O'Connor said nobody should be made to feel like an outsider. This is a violation. I feel like I'm not a real American because I won't uphold the pledge," he said.

He filed a similar case in Florida in 1997, seeking to strike the words "in God we trust" from U.S. currency. He said Wednesday's decision is a "hopping off point" for other lawsuits, including one to end family laws, such as those concerning custody.

SO saying a phrase with the word God in it, is forcing ones religon on people? This guy spent 2 much time in the 60's.

You seem to make several times what I would consider the illogical conclusion that because a law is passed by the majority of the population or a particular belief is supported by the majority of the population, that that inherently trumps a legal interpretation of the Constitution.

I consider this to be at the very least a dubious assertion. Just because a law enjoys majority support doesn't make it inherently Constitutional. Badly written law is still badly written law whether 5% of the country supports it or 95% of the country supports it. Extrapolating from your argument one must conclude that Brown vs. Board Of Education was a mistake and Plessy vs. Fergeson should never have been overturned.

In this case from what I've read of the decision, I think the 9th Circuit is factually accurate in its reasoning, particularly if you take into account what Eisenhower said when he signed it.

Would you consider it a breach of the Establishment Clause if the Pledge used "under Allah" instead of "under God"? Seriously. If the answer is yes then you have to explain to me the difference between the two.

Anyone who complains that this decision only strengthens the hand of the Christianity haters or advances their cause needs to stop and think about that concept for a minute because they have just legitimized the 9th Circuit's argument that the Pledge in its current form is not religion neutral.

That said, I have to say that I am not in favor of this decision. Though I do believe the outcome to be correct, in all honesty this case wasn't worth the effort put into it. Getting that nit picky over the Establishment Clause is overkill in my book. The only thing it will do is get a bunch of people riled for no good reason. We all know the Supreme Court will reverse the decision.

I'm more or less agnostic but I have no problem with the Plegde in its current form. But it does violate the Establishment Clause. But I consider it to be a "harmless violation". No harm, no foul.

Hey, atheism, agnosticism, socialism - are religions in their own right and this decision was clearly unconsitutional because it made the state to give a preference to the religion of atheism vs most other religious beleives.

Emotion aside. Look at the logic. I am assuming that you are familiar with the Six-Signa analysis. What this means is that everything can be broken down into a bell shaped curve. Ages, occupation, religion, actions, behavior, everything. Sigma refers to the degree of inclusion of the entities.

One sigma would cut off the extreme top and bottom sides of the bell curve. A One sigma analysis states (kinda like) the 80/20 rules. 80% of the population is included in the middle, but the top and bottom 10% deviate from the norm to such a degree that they are excluded from the majority.

A two-sigma is tighter and has a smaller percentage at the extremes, and a six-sigma is over 95% inclusive. This kind of analysis is useful in factories where it is costly and impossible to include every person in the object.

Any one who has studied Calculus understands that an inversely exponential calculation will never reach zero. It would approach it, but it would never reach it.

The argument against the term "God" in the Pledge is based on the flawed belief that the Constitution is infinity-sigma. That is is completely incluse of evry one and every aspect. The truth is that no matter what form the Pledge takes there will be someone who will be offended.

The best way that I can explain this is that in a DEMOCRACY, the ONLY way that everyone would agree would be to have a situation whereas there are no freedoms. For where does democracy stop infringing on ones freedoms? That is the issue at stake. I'll repeat it again. Where does democracy (The rule of the majority) stop infringing on individual freedoms?

Bumping, for later read. Thanks for all the work!!!

Petition to the President of the United States and Members of Congress

I speak as an American citizen. The recent decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco where the Pledge of Allegiance was ruled Unconstitutional is an attack on America by way of the legal system. We are indeed "One Nation Under God."
To declare that anyone who pledges allegiance to the Flag of our Country is breaking the law is to declare the President of the United States and every member of Congress to be law breakers.
It has become abundantly clear that the two judges that voted for this must be impeached and removed from office. Please use the authority that you have been invested with and immediately vote to impeach judges Stephen Reinhardt and Alfred Goodwin.
To sign the Petition, click HERE.

The pledge doe's not violate the establishment clause which specifically was included to avoid a Church of England or official religion situation. The problems in Northern Ireland are proof of the problems caused by an official, state sponsored state controlled religion which by definition would not be a religion but a corporation. All you separation nuts never fail to omit the other part of the wording forbidding the govt. from preventing the free exercise of religion. Unless you are told by the govt. under threat of force that you must worship in a certain state approved way it is not an establishment situation but the exercise of free choice.

BUMP