the Case of the Freeper FRiva Feva is under scrutiny - super-sleuths are welcomed
come resolve the way to yesterday's Target Post, you're not out of the running yet
win your registration fees to the FRive Las Vegas Conference if you dare
Posted on 06/27/2002 10:28:59 AM PDT by kattracks
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives began their day Thursday by pledging allegiance to the American flag and clearly enunciating the phrase, "one nation under God." On this day, the Pledge was more than an expression of patriotism. It was also a condemnation of Wednesday's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling.
Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) opened the Senate's session.
"The Senate will come to order with prayer to Almighty God, the Supreme Judge of the world, which will be led by the Senate chaplain, the Reverend Dr. Lloyd J. Ogilvie," Byrd said.
Ogilvie began his prayer by giving thanks for the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"We acknowledge the separation of sectarianism and state," he said, "but affirm the belief that there is no separation between God and state."
"In God we trust," the chaplain continued, invoking the official motto of the United States, and noting the historical connection between the country and the religious beliefs of its people.
"Our founders declared their trust in You, and in each stage of our development, You've guided us through peril and prosperity, peace and war."
The House similarly began its session by reciting the pledge, with many members shouting the phrase "under God." The members then broke into applause that lasted nearly two minutes. Following that, lawmakers joined hands and sang the chorus of "God Bless America.
As CNSNews.com previously reported, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.
Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote that the phrase "under God" is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, and violates the so-called "establishment clause" of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
"A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel.
The clause of the First Amendment to which Goodwin referred states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The panel made no reference in its ruling to the second half of the religious discussion in the amendment, which states, \ldblquote...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The Senate, by a vote of 99 to 0, passed a resolution Wednesday afternoon expressing its support for the Pledge of Allegiance. The House is expected to take up a similar resolution sometime Thursday.
The Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF), a public interest law firm, announced shortly after the ruling that it will file a friend of the court brief to appeal the decision.
"In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court turned back an appeal to declare unconstitutional the nation's motto, 'In God We Trust,' and we are confident that the high court will apply the same judicial mindset to the 9th Circuit appeal," said SLF President Phil Kent.
E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
So hypocritical. What about freedom of religion for those who aren't monotheistic? Apparently that doesn't matter.
"We acknowledge the separation of sectarianism and state," he said, "but affirm the belief that there is no separation between God and state."
This statement contradicts itself. God is sectarian. You cannot couple God to the state and still believe they are separate.
The pledge as a whole is not unconstitutional...the problem is that the current version does not represent all Americans equally. There are many who are not monotheistic, many who believe in a female deity, and many who believe in no diety at all. Those two little words in the pledge are unwarranted.
Say those two little words are removed....Those of you who believe in one God can still say the pledge with all your religious fervor in your heart. Those of you who don't believe in one God can finally say the pledge without being oppressed or pushed into a religious leaning.
Say those two little words are not removed....Those of you who believe in one God and that democracy is always a good thing can feel justified and that once again, you are right (whether that is true remains at issue). Those of you who don't believe in one God should be able to recite the pledge, leave out the offending words, and not be persecuted for it.
The best solution, however, is to restore the pledge to its Pre-Eisenhower condition, when it represented ALL Americans (with liberty and justice) regardless of race, creed, gender, etc.
That being said, as a good libertarian who truly believes all taxation is theft, no tax dollars should be spent on this controversy one way or the other. The pledge as a whole should not be mandatory recitation (freedom of speech (or silence in this case), anyone?), and especially the two words in question must not be required.
I am an American. I'm proud to be so. I say the pledge gladly, almost in its entirety. But I tend to resent the thing as a whole for those two little words added in religious fervor to a God who doesn't exist for me. Those two little words make the pledge contradict itself ... if it doesn't represent all Americans, it can hardly promote liberty and justice for all.
-- Angela
Black Forest, Colorado
* restore the pledge to its pre-Eisenhower state of representing ALL Americans *
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
the Case of the Freeper FRiva Feva is under scrutiny - super-sleuths are welcomed
come resolve the way to yesterday's Target Post, you're not out of the running yet
win your registration fees to the FRive Las Vegas Conference if you dare
Interesting how they always leave the last part (in bold type) of that clause out.
How can that be when two of the three judges were appointed by Republicans (Nixon, Reagan)?
They are not "required" or "mandatory." The Supreme Court made that perfectly clear awhile ago. This case is about stifling the freedom of speech of those who are "willing" (as quoted from the majority opinion of the 9th Circuit issued yesterday) to say the pledge. Repeat -- the right of anyone, including the smallest schoolchild, to opt out of saying the pledge -- in its entirety, or in part -- is protected by law.
Pretty neat run-on sentence, though.
oh, now THAT's constructive.
*Restore the pledge to its pre-Eisenhower representation of ALL Americans!*
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.