American Court Orders God to Get Lost

Wall St Journal ^ | 6-28-02 | DANIEL HENNINGER

[SJackson]

This is just what we need. Amid mass murder on U.S. soil, a difficult war on terror, the fires of hell consuming Colorado and Arizona, the stock market extinguishing people's wealth, almost ungraspable fraud alleged at WorldCom, the phenomenon of suicide bombers, the threat of biowarfare, Martha Stewart hurled into media purgatory -- amid this, the federal appeals court in San Francisco decides now is the moment to declare that God is dead.

[anniegetyourgun]

Classroom environment the libs really want:

[Heartlander]

"… one Nation, under God, indivisible?…" It appears that once the words "under God" are taken from our pledge, "one Nation" and "indivisible" no longer apply. Division has materialized in our nation. It has not split the country into two equal parts by any means, in fact the majority of people in this great nation believe in a deity. This country was founded on freedom to worship and freedom 'of' religion not freedom 'from' religion. The Founding Fathers put these words into the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." to stop the possibility of a state sponsored religion but more specifically, they did not want a strictly 'Protestant' country. This statement has been taken out of context to now mean that no religion is permissible in public; it has been taken out of context to mean that NO GOD IS PERMISSIBLE in public. We have gone from freedom of religion to the removal of God. Does anyone truly believe that this is what our Founding Fathers envisioned?

"…with liberty and justice for all?…" Remove God from the pledge and I do not see how these words still apply. Where is the liberty if we are not allowed to speak of God in public building? An unbeliever is not forced to speak of God or even to say the pledge, yet why are we bound by word police? Justice for all? - what justice? It is not fair or reasonable to equate saying God to crying fire in a theater. Is it 'justice for all' or 'relative justice for a few'? I realize that the few must have a right to voice their opinion and be heard or else, for example, civil right as we know it might not exist. But remember that it was due to a religious conviction.

"…and to the Republic for which it stands?…" I do not believe that once you remove God from the public that the flag stands for the Republic. Who and what does it represent? The Republic was established to prevent these types of things from happening. We should have elected officials who understand our constitution and always keep it in context. These elected officials are to appoint judges who understand the law of our land and do not take those laws out of context.

So the words that are we left with are:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the (somewhat) United States of America."
That’s it, symbolism over substance. Now is this Great Country supposed to pledge an allegiance to a ‘now’ meaningless symbol? I thought that this is what the atheists wanted to prevent - at least in their eyes. The atheist says it is not fair for him to pay taxes towards a school that mentions God. Does anyone agree one hundred percent with the way our tax dollars are spent? Why is ‘just’ the word “God” his biggest fear? They should have no fear of “God”. Are atheist children really coming home from school religious; or are religious children coming home from school with a new religion - naturalism.

Do not take the constitution out of context, but more importantly, do not take 'our Nation' out of context by removing God. Remove God from our Country and it makes our flag a meaningless symbol, our Constitution a meaningless document, the Declaration of Independence is meaningless, and our Nation's foundation becomes sand.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

These judges are exactly the kind of people Wellstone, Carnahan and the Clintons want in our courts. I hope the GOP beats the tar out of these folk with this in November.

[flyervet]

It appears that once the words "under God" are taken from our pledge, "one Nation" and "indivisible" no longer apply. Division has materialized in our nation.

So we were a divided nation from 1892 to 1953, before the words "under God" were inserted into the pledge?

[elephantlips]

No, we had prayer in school and the Supreme Court of the United States recognized that our nation was Christian founded and built on Christian principles. God was celebrated everywhere,

[0scill8r]

Get the t-shirt here:

http://www.cafepress.com/under g

[flyervet]

No, we had prayer in school and the Supreme Court of the United States recognized that our nation was Christian founded and built on Christian principles. God was celebrated everywhere,

Well, we still have prayer in school on a voluntary basis. I don't believe the Supreme Court has commented on our fouding since the beginning of the 20th century and God still seems pretty popular.

In saying that our nation will be divided without the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, you are playing right into the liberals' hands. They want to advance the argument that using the words "under God" makes the pledge the equivalent of a prayer. Clearly you agree with them. Not good company, IMHO.

[cascademountaineer]

The interesting part is that the American public are actually opposed to this decision and it may very well turn out to have little or no basis in law.

The only ones supporting it are extreme liberals out of touch with the majority of people in the nation and selfish identity politics groups with an agenda that revolves around their exclusivist issues who view the majority of people in this country with extreme contempt and spite.

[VRWC_minion]

So we were a divided nation from 1892 to 1953, before th words "under God" were inserted into the pledge?

FWIW, I could not pledge allegiance to anything that wsn't under God. Without such a qualifier the pledge would be off limits to most thinking Christians.

[Wm Bach]

It would seem to me that the 9th court is making a statement particularly apropos to a time at which we are fighting the advocates of intolerant theocracy; that although individual conscience is respected, the government takes the side of no particular deity or system of theologic superstition.

Comparing the intolerant islamist culture of death with the West's free expression of religion is so pathologically misguided as to border on insanity.

No one in the U.S. is forced to recite the Pledge. On the other hand, the islamicists will lop off your head if you do not bend knee to allah. The 9th wishes to lop off the heads of anyone exercising their 1st Amendment rights to utter the Pledge.

You will be better served if you draw your comparisons between Al Quada and the intolerance of the Athiest Fundamentalist 9th.

[Dimensio]

The 9th wishes to lop off the heads of anyone exercising their 1st Amendment rights to utter the Pledge.

The ruling of the 9th Circuit Court, despite prevailaint lies to the contrary, does not enjoin individuals from reciting the Pledge in any form they choose even while on public property.

[Wm Bach]

Even if that individual is a teacher?

[Dimensio]

Yep, even if that individual is a teacher -- the ruling was on presenting it as an oath presented on behalf of the school while using the words "under god". As such, if a teacher is reciting it on his/her own rather than presenting it as an official school message then there is no problem.

[Wm Bach]

Yep, even if that individual is a teacher -- the ruling was on presenting it as an oath presented on behalf of the school while using the words "under god". As such, if a teacher is reciting it on his/her own rather than presenting it as an official school message then there is no problem.

So a teacher can stand in front of a class and recite the pledge, those students wishing to recite it, can do so, but they can not do so together simultaneously? Barring recitation en masse violates their freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. In other words, the ruling is a pile of horsesh*t and you know it.

[Dimensio]

So a teacher can stand in front of a class and recite the pledge, those students wishing to recite it, can do so, but they can not do so together simultaneously?

If a teacher is supposed to be teaching at the time, then it would be no more appropriate than had the teacher been reciting the Lord's Prayer or bowing to Mecca. If the recitiation is occuring within a non-classroom setting during free-time for both the teacher and students involved (note: this does not necessarily mean during off-school hours) then there is no problem. The problem (according to the ruling) is when the pledge with the "under god" insertion is presented by the government (or a government agency, such as the public school system) as the "official" version.

[moneyrunner]

Why do we have a Pledge of Allegiance? Is the Pledge a “civic prayer?” Why should I stand with my hand over my heart facing a piece of cloth representing a nation in which the government is determined to push God out of civic life?

When is the offense done by atheists to people of faith going to become an issue to be considered by the courts?

[ohioman]

It would seem to me that the 9th court is making a statement particularly apropos to a time at which we are fighting the advocates of intolerant theocracy; that although individual conscience is respected, the government takes the side of no particular deity or system of theologic superstition.

Got to hell bud. Oops sorry. You probably don't believe in that either.

[ohioman]

How is your butt buddy Al gore?