9TH CIRCUIT COURT: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Fox News ^

[Recovering_Democrat]

UNBELIEVABLE. BREAKING ON FOX: SF APPEALS COURT SAYS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ENDORSES RELIGION, AND IS THEREBY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[BMCDA]

Yeah, I'm also in favour of changing "In God We Trust" to "In G-d We Trust" on the Dollar. Methinks Argee may also support this idea ;)

[Dimensio]

How disingenous and patronizing of you!

I didn't say everyone, but the mentality of many of the people responding to this issue (judging from their reactions) suggests that this is an existing opinion.

That you cannot accurately discern the reality of what is being done - throwing the baby out with the bathwater and deliberately balderdizing our National Pledge - shows you to be an enemy of America.

Waitaminute...advocating that the Pledge be restored to its original form amounts to balderization?!?!

Once again, I just don't get the "logic" involved.

[maui_hawaii]

The US is one nation under God. Period. Its more of a history lesson than endorsement of religion.

The basic tenet of the foundation of the US was for religious freedom, whether you are Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Muslim, whoever, this nation was set up for people to worship how they want.

No one is forced to participate in the pledge, just like a prayer. They can sit there and be respectful all day long.

But because it is offensive to the ears of someone who does not believe then that means 'its wrong'...

These same people argue that 'you cannot have the Jesus club in schools, because I refuse to pay my tax to support your religion...'

Allowing the practice thereof does not mean endorsement. They should be able to have bible study, just like they can have debate class...

The fact that I am there should not be offensive. They don't want to peacefully coexist. They seek to eliminate religion from all public life. Pretty soon, if you are a soldier, or a Senator, but you go to church, you too will be 'unconstitutional'...

Their rights count more than other people's rights. They are not the only taxpayers.

[Dimensio]

I prefer the UNIX-esque "In $DEITY We Trust". That way you can insert any string into $DEITY, so it isn't offensive to anyone...except those who trust absolutely nothing.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

What a selfish,selfish father this egomaniac is. To subject his child to what is becoming a bigger firestorm, than the western fires, is the act of a negligent parent.This child will be forever branded, like Madeline Murray O'Hair's son. A shameful act,made even more so,by using a small child as a pawn.

[maxwellp]

I just watched the father, Michael Newdow, who brought this all about because his second-grade daughter had to say the Pledgein school, on Hannity & Commie. All I could think of was, and I don't wish it for him believe me, is if his doctor had to say to him one day, "Well Mr. Newdow, you have incurable cancer and only have three months to live". I'd bet my last dollar Mr. Newdow would say, or think, "Oh, my God". And I'd also bet, if, God forbid, something happened to his daughter, he'd also be calling on God. I did feel sorry for him - he's rather a sad sack completely lacking in stamina of any kind. On the other hand, Thank God, he's in the minority amongst Americans, along with the iditoic judges.

[another cricket]

That is not his position. I'm not sure if I agree with him or not, but I certainly see his argument.
That sounds like your opinion. It certainly is not what I heard him say on FOX news this afternoon.

I am not sure what you heard but it is not my opinion. To quote what he said in the SF Chronicle. "Even though his daughter wasn't forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, it was wrong to require her to listen to it when she doesn't believe in it, he said."

Link to Story

I read somewhere else that the school offered to let her leave the classroom but that was not good enough. BTW He filed this suit in Florida previously it was thrown out because at the time his daughter was not even of school age. He filed another suit in Florida in 1997, seeking to strike the words "in God we trust" from U.S. currency.

Maybe you misheard or maybe he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. But that is his position and not my opinion.

a.cricket

[balls]

You may freely practice your religion. However, I do NOT want your Bug-A-Boo imposed upon me or my children.

Beautiful. My feelings precisely.

[Dimensio]

I'd bet my last dollar Mr. Newdow would say, or think, "Oh, my God".

Ah, that sounds like an appeal to the old "no atheists in foxholes" myth.

[Charlotte Corday]

People who are too attached to pledges and flags are very often not enough attached to human liberty.

Well said.

"Under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954. I am aware of few if any ways that, since that date, we have become a more virtuous nation.

I wonder, did God disdain the United States from 1787 through 1953?

[truth_session]

They have in fact ruled it unconstitutional because of two words.

God is neither imposed on anyone nor does anyone have to say the pledge if they do not wish. Even if "God was imposed" this still would not be establishing a state sanctioned religion and is therefore not unconstitutional on any grounds.

If in fact requiring that the two words "under God" be quoted in the pledge were unconstitutional, then on the same grounds making kids take evolution and sex-ed classes
is unconstitutional. In fact, any required activity to do with anyone's beliefs at all would be unconstitutional, and consequently, the public schools themselves would be unconstitutional because students are required to do things every day that go against their religious beliefs, pagans, athiests, agnostics, and humanists included.

[rwfromkansas]

I just graduated high school. We had the pledge over the intercom. The principal made it clear nobody HAD to say it if he did not wish to. Why have people say it if they don't believe it or believe they are performing idol worship like the JW's do? I was never forced to say it, but I did so out of respect. I often omitted "indivisible," because I do not believe that. Nobody looked at me funny. Atheists could simply omit under God. It is their right. Instead, they have to make a federal case out of the issue and let half-baked judges that wouldn't know the Constitution if it was in front of them tear down this country for them.

[truth_session]

A creator is implied and assumed. "Our Lord" refers to Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

[DrCarl]

>What about that don't you understand.

Trust me. Anything you understand, I understand more clearly. The First Amendment is clear on this issue. Better come to grips with it as it is finally becoming the law of the land. You will not use any venue you please to spout your religiosity because the First Amendment says that you will not and the 9th circuit court has interpreted this Amendment for those who have difficulty understanding it.

Come to have more confidence that your God exists and you won't be so desperate to make those around you reinforce your beliefs.

[Dimensio]

"Our Lord" was a dating convention at the time. How does the US Constitution imply a foundation upon a "Creator" or "Our Lord and Saviour Christ"?

[truth_session]

Do you believe this is one nation under Allah?

[truth_session]

Imply a foundation? What do you mean?

[rustbucket]

That you cannot accurately discern the reality of what is being done - throwing the baby out with the bathwater and deliberately balderdizing our National Pledge - shows you to be an enemy of America.

Wow! I've never seen a post like yours before. Nice to know there is a self-appointed arbiter of who is an enemy and who is not.

Dimensio's point, [For some people (a lot of people, judging from the reaction) not mentioning god is exactly the same as outright stating "there is no god".], made a lot of sense actually. Apparently some people do think that way, strange as it may seem.