US "Pledge" ruling exposes political scoundrels

28 June 2002 | Bill Vann

[Kevin Curry]

Yet another atheist zealot bigot breathes fire and threats. His monopoly on religion in the public schools isn't at risk, but it angers him that anyone would even dare to disagree with the black-robed liberal high priests of godlessness of the 9th Circuit.

[Pyro7480]

Leftist spouting nothing but hot air ALERT!!

[Euphen]

Yeah, well at least I'm not bald.

[Post Toasties]

Only militant atheists or other misanthropists, many of whom have otherwise objectionable agendas, would attempt to use the US's legal system to remove any mention of God in a national pledge, song, currency or during the proceedings of a nation's legislative or judicial bodies.

[rwfromkansas]

not breaking news or an action item.......delete this promptly, moderator.

[Southack]

From a legal viewpoint, what the 9th Circuit did wrong was overlook the 1943 Supreme Court decision which ruled that the pledge was voluntary.

You can't ban voluntary speech, especially if your aim is to "sanitize" all speech on government property of any reference to theism (because that creates a bias towards atheism).

If the court had said that people can't be compelled to pledge, then they would have been fine.

But they went further than that. They said that people can't make the pledge at all in front of students.

They can't do that, Constitutionally, and that's why their decision will be voided, either by themselves or by the Supreme Court.

[Pyro7480]

Hmmm? Bald?

[dighton]

not breaking news or an action item

Say goodbye to Euphen, soon to be known as "No current Freeper by that name."

[rwfromkansas]

"If the court had said that people can't be compelled to pledge, then they would have been fine."

Wrong. For one, nobody was forced to say the Pledge in the case anyway, so the court would be overstepping the issue. Second, it would be showing how ignorant the court was of Minnersville School District Vs. Maryland (I know I spelled that one wrong....lol).

[GregoryFul]

The Constitution reads that Congress shall make no law...

I don't think that Congress passed a law saying that school children must recite the Pledge -- so why it even a matter for the courts? Nothing better to do?

[Reactionary]

The First Amendment, it continued, “prohibits the government’s endorsement or advancement not only of one religion at the expense of other religions, but also of religion at the expense of atheism.”

The First Amendment doesn't say anything about this vague notion of "endorsing" or "advancing" one religion over another. It says nothing about an equality of religions or the status of atheism. It has absolutely nothing to say about any of these issues. It says quite simply that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Even if one allows that any public expression of religious sentiment is the same thing as "endorsing" or "advancing" religion, it certainly certainly cannot be said to be the same thing as establishing a religion, can it?

Of course, it hardly seems to matter. Our friends on the left aren't bothered by plain English, American history, or any reasonable interpretation of the law. No. What they are interested in is "interpreting" their way to absolute political power.

[ThePythonicCow]

Where did this article come from? I found some other articles by Bill Vann on the World Socialist Web Site, which would seem to be fitting with what little of this article I could stomach reading.

[Roscoe]

The ruling by a three-judge federal appeals court panel in San Francisco that compelling the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance

The entire article is premised on a lie. The case involved barring voluntary recitations of the pledge.

[CyberAnt]

"the most elementary democratic principle"

Geeee, I think that one is FREE SPEECH!

[Cultural Jihad]

The case involved barring voluntary recitations of the pledge.

Furthermore, the Founders never wanted any mention of God barred from the halls of government, they just didn't want any one particular religion to become the official religion. This ruling states that the mere mention of God violates the establishment clause, which is ludicrous.

[bok]

The pledge is socialist in origin and a historian has noted the straight arm roman salute was used while reciting it.

[Crossbow Eel]

Ping )))))))

[knuthom]

compelling the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to “one nation under God” in public schools is unconstitutional

The child of the man who filed the suit was not compelled to say it. But he didn't want other people to say it either.

[RJCogburn]

The court ruling is silly, but the reaction to it is well overdone. It will make little difference in our lives or in the fate of the nation. It has been the source of political posturing and feigned outrage by politicians.