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 ...
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.
You of all people here should know that.
"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
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?
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!
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.
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.
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
Thanks for the explanations.
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.
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?
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.
Maybe it's time for the ground to open up and swallow San Fran!
Leni
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).
Newdow seek a second bite at the apple.
The 9th Circus will uphold it and it will have to go back to the USSC.
Hopefully by the time it's heard, Chief Justice Roberts and another Bush appointed Justice will help bring santity back to the court.
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.
Yikes, you must tell Maxwell Smart about this IMMEDIATELY!
Leni
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.