9TH CIRCUIT COURT: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Fox News ^

[maranatha]

I bought a t-shirt the other day sold as a promotional item for only $5 at Family Christian Bookstore that states, "One Nation Under God" Under God is in red.

Already, members of Senate and House are already expressing outrage and I heard Senator Byrd hopes the Senate will act swiftly some sort of resolution to throw back in the face of that stupid judge. I can't remember his exact words, but "stupid judge" is exact.

[Bounceback]

"Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel."

For a second I thought it was Alfred E. Newman.

[CecilRhodesGhost]

Rohry- Please take a deep breath and read the UN Pledge. It doesn't mention God for a reason... because it causes the exact type of dissent and division that we are all seeing today in America. I'm hoping you will understand why some are concerned about the division of church and state.

[NukeMan]

I thought the same. This is gonna be bigger than that "Why White men prefer Asian Women" thread...

[Verax]

Bump!

[NeoCrusade]

I guess it doesn't matter how many times this is explained, but (here goes...)

Nobody wants religion banned from schools. Schools should teach about all kinds of religions, as many as they can fit into the curriculum. There should be moments of silence when students who choose to pray, can. But no particular religion should be endorsed implicitly or explicitly in a public school. If you want your child to attend a religious school, that is your right - you pay for it.

Your last post bordered on an ad-hominem attack on me, which I know wasn't your intent. I can tell that your emotions are taking over.

[rohry]

I see that CecilRhodesGhost is educating you about his true nature as we type.

That is a good thing...Enjoy your research.

[CecilRhodesGhost]

That's not correct! Pres. Bush (along with myself and many other followers of world trade affairs) support expanding NAFTA... if that is what you call "no borders" then well so be it. As for a cashless society... it's coming even if you don't want it. Don't blame me personally.

[scarface367]

So now you are saying the U.N has got it right by not including religion? Do you have any idea on the morals for which this country is founded. You obviously do not.

Tell me, what is the most successful athiest nation on Earth? China?!? Come back when you have intelligent replies.

[rohry]

"Please take a deep breath and read the UN Pledge..."

Don't lecture me. I don't support the UN and you'll soon find that the majority of your twisted views don't belong on this forum. The more you post, the more people see your true nature.

[jla]

A tradition continues...

[Reaganwuzthebest]

As for a cashless society... it's coming even if you don't want it. Don't blame me personally.

But it is what you favor. Most of us on this forum don't subscribe to that. And I'm taking everything you've said since arriving here in context, including this thread. You are a globalist who would trash the Constitution in a heartbeat for some world government. That's your basis for supporting today's decision, not the separation of Church and State argument that you're using as a cover.

[On Alert]

I am going to print and frame that statement. I love it!

[The_Media_never_lie]

The real test will be how ABCNBCCBS reports this story ... If not portrayed as an outrageous decision by an out- of-control court, this nation is doomed.

There is little doubt how Fox will report it.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Finally! Bush does something kinda conservative!

You don't think a tax cut is "kinda conservative"?

[A CA Guy]

This ruling follows the Libertarian way of thinking because in 1954 the Legislature added "Under God" without a Constitutional Amendment.
Libertarian's as I read them feel all-law not made up of Amendments to the Constitution would be invalid on a Federal level.
In that way, this ruling would be their dream ruling!

Am I wrong?

[CecilRhodesGhost]

I never said I openly support this ruling. Is it a crime to try to show both sides of a coin?

[Political Junkie Too]

Is this what the Democrats means when they say they are making ideology an issue for appointing Federal judges? If so, then why did the Senate pass a resolution condemning this ruling by 99-0?

Hypocrisy?

-PJ