Posted on 06/26/2002 11:25:21 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
UNBELIEVABLE. BREAKING ON FOX: SF APPEALS COURT SAYS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ENDORSES RELIGION, AND IS THEREBY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.
HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.
HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of the Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and the Convulsions within.
HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.
HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.
HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us;
FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rules into these Colonies:
FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.
HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.
HE has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.
IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.
WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATED OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
It's time for Americans to begin acting like Americans. Call your representatives in the Senate and the House and demand the impeachment of these pathetic leftist/socialist judges.
It's our right in this republic for which we either stand together or we're gonna fall!
A quote from you on post 138:
"This ruling will likely mean merely a small change to the pledge so that it doesn't affect or infringe on the rights of non-believers. The ruling affirms the idea that government can't place a manger scene in a courthouse lawn, and it shouldn't be able to force its citizens to pledge to a religious belief."
What are you saying if you don't support the decision?
Again, I'm taking everything you've said in context since arriving here. You have a right to your views, but you aren't going to find too many supporters of the globalist agenda on this forum.
Share with others Unfortunately, I think that phrase will be used to try to extract money from western nations to prop up socialist governments in the undeveloped world.
Preserve the Planet That will probably be used to push the highly flawed Kyoto Treaty or some equivalent, despite a lack of scientific consensus about the causes of global warming (it's the sun, but liberal governments can't tax the sun).
Forget the UN Pledge. Dropping "under God" from the American Pledge makes the most sense to me. The words weren't in the pledge to begin with, and they don't have to be there for the Pledge to confirm your loyalty to the country.
"One Nation Under God" - Your "God" can be any diety you deem. There is no harm in the Pledge of Allegiance, it gives kids a time to reflect on the sacrifices that some have made defending your right to be an A$$hule. Furthermore this country was founded "under God" whether you like it or not.
What makes you think that I have a shrivelled up, bone-dry raisin of a heart? Is it just because I don't believe in your god or no god at all?
Atheism is on the march and its high priests exult. The Republic is in retreat.
Now if the pledge of allegiance does endorse a religion or religion in general over non-religion then it is unconstitutional. And it would also be unconstitutional if it included "one nation under no gods".
This problem could be settled if those two words were removed from the pledge, after all they were not included prior to 1954. I don't think that anyone would consider it unconstitutional in the pre 1954 form.
Further, I can't remember that the state "religion" of the US was atheism before the fifties because there was no IGWT on the money or "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. And if atheism is on the march because the pledge is considered unconstitutional because of the "under God" phrase and some want it removed then what was on the march in the fifties when "under God" was inserted in the pledge? Was it Christianity or religion in general? And how many Christian "high priests" did exult back then?
I don't know if it's just me, but sometimes I have the impression that if some jerk wanted "indivisible", "liberty" or "justice for all" removed from the pledge it wouldn't cause such an outrage as is the case with "under God".
"Our Consititution(sic) was made for a moral and religious people. It is totally unsuited to any other." John Adams.
John Adams may have been a great man (and I think he was) but that doesn't mean that he was always right. So I (and many others) think that being religious is not a requirement. If this were the case then I'm sure that being not religious would have already been addressed in the Constitution itself if it were not suited for non-religious folks (after all this was a common practice in pretty much of the rest of the world where adhering to no religion or to the false religion was indeed unconstitutional).
His address and another Phone number to call, also other addresses and phone numbers of the 9th federal circuit
Now class, please take your seats and turn to page 339 in your Humanality And All That Jazz textbook.
Remove the beige-colored balloon from the upper left hand pocket.
And now, Jessamyn, will you please pass out all the fresh zucchini stacked in the Malcolm X Memorial basket in the corner?
That's right. One zucchini each--boys as well as girls. Boys like vegetables as well as girls, you know.
Now class, I want you to form work groups---three students to each group--three god-fearing American students I might add--two girls and one boy to each lab table.
Now girls--and girls only--slide the balloon---also known as a condom--that's "c"-"o"-"n"-"d"-"o"-"m"--onto the proud, tumescent zucchinni.
That's right Melanie--tug hard honey--you'll get used to it. There you go!
Very good class. Very good, indeed.
Now you know practically everything you need to know about preventing horrible stuff in the world. One Nation--indivisible and under God--who educates young women in the art of condom application has little to fear.
Now boys---calm down. Stop that!! Stop that right now. Sit down Jason or I'll call the Ritalin Facilitator.
All right class. All right. That's enough.
Now boys. Here's a special treat just for you. Mr. Bruce Fawmpwell-Stevenshite is here to show you the diverse uses to which boys can put zucchinis and condoms.
You girls will sit quietly in your seats and write a 200 word essay on the subject of: Our Indivisible, God-fearing, Nation--why I love it so".
After which we will all sing Allah Bless America in honor of the Islamic celebration of Ramadan......
Both Jefferson and Madison believed that the Establishment clause of the First Amendment required it...and said so in so many words. Jefferson and Madison were battling the CHURCH OF ENGLAND and its ESTABLISHMENT in the colonies. If you can provide anything to back your claim, I'll be more than happy to read it.I'll be glad to:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
-Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802
There's only one such act of the whole American people that I can think of that used those words. By the way, Jefferson never said in that letter that it was a "one directional wall", as has made the rounds on the 'net. The Library of Congress maintains an extensive website on the Danbury Letter (including the FBI's restoration of the scratched out words on the draft) and the codicil simply does not appear. I think that came from David Barton (who had to admit that many of the quotes he's based his works on could not be confirmed) but I'm not sure.
On to Madison:
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
-James Madison, "Monopolies. Perpetuities. Corporations. Ecclesiastical Endowments," as reprinted in Elizabeth Fleet, "Madison's Detatched Memoranda," William & Mary Quarterly, Third series: Vol. III, No. 4 [October, 1946]
Madison's words, which make direct reference to the Constitution, speak for themselves.
Many of the Founders and Framers were indeed religious men: Madison and John Adams come to mind. Some, such as Patrick Henry, even believed that religion should play a part in the new American nation. Most did not. In addition, there were men who were reticent about any faith they might have (such as Washington), and even Deists such as Franklin, Jefferson, and Paine. These latter men may have seen use for religion, but not compulsory religion, as they themselves believed in no revealed faith.
In the end, the Separationists carried the day. Some of their reasons were philosophical, the idea that religion, which is ideally purely a matter of personal conscience, should not be in any way mixed with the compulsion of government. Other reasons were more practical, the colonies had their own predominant faiths and sectarian squabbles could wreck the new and critical unity.
Did this mean that they had renounced Christianity? No. Just its role in government. John Adams could sign a treaty affirming that the United States Government was in no way founded upon the Christian religion, while remaining a devout Christian himself. It was all completely consistent to them.
-Eric
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.