Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal judge rules Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional in CA!
Fox News ^

Posted on 09/14/2005 11:51:27 AM PDT by Rightwingmom

SAN FRANCISCO — Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance (search) in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; aleftistwhomustgo; americanflag; antiamerican; antitheist; churchandstate; communist; constitution; flag; government; islamofascist; judgesrobe; lawsuit; letthemknow; nearyourhometown; newdow; ninthcircuit; pledge; pledgeofallegiance; professorsgown; purge; ruling; schools; thestockpilesong; undergod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-134 next last
To: Dead Corpse

Gosh, you're good at cherry picking. Anyway, your quote makes it clear that Jefferson was very tolerant and would not mind if other people prayed publicly or did not do so.

Jefferson certainly had little use for much of official church hierarchy.

What does church hierarchy have to do with eternal religious principles?

Hint: Nothing.


81 posted on 09/14/2005 2:13:26 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Once it requires that it would have been too late -

You of all people here should know that.

82 posted on 09/14/2005 2:13:43 PM PDT by expatguy (http://laotze.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

"Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests
of society require the observation of those moral precepts ... in
which all religions agree." --Thomas Jefferson


83 posted on 09/14/2005 2:18:02 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
...and would not mind if other people prayed publicly or did not do so.

Which, maybe not so oddly, is exactly the sentiment I expressed. Unfortunately, some of those on the religious right would deny other religions access to the public square.

Would my Yule log and Thor's Hammer be welcome next to a Menorah or a Nativity display?

84 posted on 09/14/2005 2:19:10 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be. -El Neil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: CIB-173RDABN

Why we allow an organization founded by a true blue Communist to slowly de-construct the pillars this country was built on is just unbelievable!


85 posted on 09/14/2005 2:23:56 PM PDT by american spirit (Can you handle the truth? - www.rbnlive.com ( 4-6 CST M-F)) / click "listen live")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: expatguy
Too late for recourse within the system, and for civil disobedience. I know that, and that was the whole point of that particular post. We still have those options (recourse within the system and civil disobedience) open to us.

But if it does come to the guns drawn condition, then we will be in the position our founders were, and will have the option to proceed as they did.

I hope, I pray, and I do not believe it will come to that. I believe we will settle it short of that...but our founders hoped, prayed, and believd that too. That's why they kept their guns at hand and is why we must do the same.

86 posted on 09/14/2005 2:26:40 PM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Since the founders were primarily Christians, and the majority of the population are still Christian, what is your point? Is anyone preventing anyone from practicing any religion as long as its practices are legal?

What part of "Judeo-Christian" do you not understand?

Recently there were some articles about (darn memory - which state was it - Maryland?) a city council or some kind of town board meeting which meets with a prayer. So a wiccan gal wanted to pray to whichever something or other that wiccans pray to.

If there were enough wiccans who wanted to hear her, it would make sense. But no one wanted to hear her. Anyone has a right to be a wiccan, but no wiccan has a right to force others to participate or be forced to listen to them.

What we have here is the opposite, and it stinks.


87 posted on 09/14/2005 2:29:09 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom
Here is a link that is timely
http://www.poofcat.com/july.html
88 posted on 09/14/2005 2:33:50 PM PDT by yield 2 the right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Your quotes from Jefferson don't even mention the Constitution and certainly provide no evidence as to whether he believed the Bill of Rights was applicable to the states and the quote from the Anti-Federalist (1) was written before the Constitution itself was ratified (and therefore obviously before the Bill of Rights was ratified) and (2) only shows that the Anti-Federalists believed that there was a need for a Bill of Rights that would apply to the new federal government because its powers were (or could become) more expansive than the Federalists were acknowledging. There is nothing that suggests that Brutus (or George Mason, Patrick Henry or any of the leading Anti-Federalists) ever wanted to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states and certainly none of the quotes provides any opinion on the scope of the Bill of Rights.

Is there any more clear proof that those who ratified the Bill of Rights did not want it to apply to the states than the fact that Madison originally proposed, as part of the Bill of Rights, an Amendment that would read:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases

Madison called it the most valuable of the proposed amendments...yet it was defeated in the Senate because the Senators did not want to make those prohibitions applicable to the states. Madison when he introduced it...made a speech explaining why he was making those specific prohibitions applicable to the states...pretty hard to claim then that the rest of the amendments also applied to the states...particularly when the Senate clearly rejected the prohibitions on the states

Moreover, as Marshall wrote in the Barron case, to understand why the Bill of Rights could never apply to the states and why the state legislatures and Senators would never have permitted it, you must know the "universally understood" (Marshall's words) historical background of the Bill of Rights. In every state convention debating ratification of the Constitution, Anti-Federalists expressed fears about the new, distant, powerful, central government that was being created. Most finally supported the Constitution...but only because the Federalists, like Madison, promised to consider a Bill of Rights soon after ratification. Madison did, obviously, quickly propose the Bill of Rights because, he wrote, states' rights advocates...the Anti-Federalists might have called a second constitutional convention to replace the new Constitution. The Bill of Rights that Anti-Federalists wanted was a Bill of Rights to limit the federal government...and not just for the sake of individual liberty, which many Americans mistakenly believe today...but as much to protect the power of the states. In essence that is the point that your Anti-Federalist 84 is making. It is incomprehensible that Madison would have risked the Constitution by trying to slip major fundamental new restrictions on states into the Bill of Rights. Nor would the Anti-Federalists in Congress or in states have permitted it. Madison, when he proposed the Bill of Rights, proposed a small number of additional restrictions on states- and clearly indicated what he was doing...but even that was rejected.

Believe me....I'm not trying to destroy the country...long term...your liberties have more to fear from an omnipotent centralized federal government than from a decentralized federalist system

89 posted on 09/14/2005 2:59:59 PM PDT by Irontank (Let them revere nothing but religion, morality and liberty -- John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

Thanks for the explanations.


90 posted on 09/14/2005 3:15:23 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom

I don't know what if any procedures are available for a recall of this judge, but I encourage any freepers more versed in that area to investigate and get back to us. The tyranny must end.


91 posted on 09/14/2005 3:17:52 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom

What happens if the kids decide to say "one nation under God" anyway? Isn't that a First Amendment right? What will the school authorities do, call the cops to ARREST little children?


92 posted on 09/14/2005 4:55:36 PM PDT by Translates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom

I was in grade school when the phrase "under God" was inserted. It was a stupid idea in the '50s and it is still a stupid idea.

It should be "under God*" where * is the syntax for zero or more Gods.


93 posted on 09/14/2005 6:44:33 PM PDT by Lessismore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom

Maybe it's time for the ground to open up and swallow San Fran!


94 posted on 09/14/2005 6:49:46 PM PDT by evangmlw ("God Is Definitely Conservative")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lessismore
Huh? Please translate.

Leni

95 posted on 09/14/2005 6:54:04 PM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom

What they so ignorantly fail to see is that the phrase "under God'" does not establish any particualar God, denomination, or religion to be worshipped; therefore the state is not establishing a religion, only acknowledging God (whoever or whatever).


96 posted on 09/14/2005 6:55:21 PM PDT by evangmlw ("God Is Definitely Conservative")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

Newdow seek a second bite at the apple.

The 9th Circus will uphold it and it will have to go back to the USSC.


97 posted on 09/14/2005 6:55:55 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Hopefully by the time it's heard, Chief Justice Roberts and another Bush appointed Justice will help bring santity back to the court.


98 posted on 09/14/2005 6:58:04 PM PDT by evangmlw ("God Is Definitely Conservative")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

In XML Document Type Definitions, when a * suffix is used with an Element name, there can be zero or more occurances of the Element.

So saying "under God*" should be equally acceptable to atheists, monotheists, and polytheists. We have some of each in this country.

The Pledge is a fairly new thing. It only started around the beginning of the 20th century, and didn't acquire the two added words until mid-century.


99 posted on 09/14/2005 7:08:39 PM PDT by Lessismore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Lessismore
"In XML Document Type Definitions, when a * suffix is used with an Element name, there can be zero or more occurances of the Element".

Yikes, you must tell Maxwell Smart about this IMMEDIATELY!

Leni

100 posted on 09/14/2005 7:30:32 PM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-134 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson