9TH CIRCUIT COURT: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Fox News ^

[RonF]

The fact that your taxes pay for public schools, as well as probably a number of other things you don't approve of, doesn't mean that you are not therefore free to send your kid to a private school. It does mean that you might have a harder time paying for that private school, but that's not the same thing.

Saying "I want my money back from education taxes so that I can pay for my kids' education at a private school" equates education taxes with tuition payments. They're not. If they were, then childless people, or people whose kids have grown up, wouldn't have to pay such taxes. But they do, because public schools are viewed as a common good, just like roads and the army. So if you don't like the public schools, you have the same remedy as if you don't like the public roads. You can peaceably petition the various levels of government (feds, state, local school board, etc.). You can even run for a seat in the government, especially the local school board, and influence the schools directly. But you don't get to take your money out, just like you don't get to take your money out and build your own roads or start your own army.

Unless, of course, you do what was done in many Southern states after desegration was required in the public schools. You can a) form a private school, and then b) starve the public schools by refusing to pass school levies. This was done in a number of locations, and is still going on today. It's your right, and it works.

Personally, I think that public schools are one of the great genius ideas of American culture. More than in most countries, people of various religious beliefs and of varying social/ethnic/economic backgrounds go to school together, learn about each other, and learn that in our kind of country people need to at least tolerate and accomodate each other, even if we don't accept each others' beliefs. I fear that destroying the public schools would destroy this, and lead to further fractionation of our country, much like we now have with so many people describing themselves as African-American, Asian-American, etc., instead of just "American".

I don't see removing the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance as being too earthshaking. Teaching about religion is too important to leave to the government, anyway. It tells much that the inclusion of those words was not seen as necessary for the first 60 years of it's existence, and were added under pressure from the Knights of Columbus. Teach your kids your religion yourselves, and keep it out of the schools.

[NeoCrusade]

Federal Reserve Notes are unconstitutional even without the "In God We Trust" part. ;^]

[floriduh voter]

The ninth circuit is certainly wasting our tax dollars every time their bad activism reaches the Supremes. Why do Federal Judges have lifetime contracts no matter how stupid they may be? It's expensive to send stuff to the Supreme Court. They are part of the giant bureaucracy and part of our budgetary problems. And, they have way too much power -THE ENTIRE WESTERN U.S.! That's what's ridiculous!

Daschle is toast. He's holding up the confirmations of hundreds of DECENT JURISTS. He can say the Pledge all day tomorrow but it will be meaningless because he in truth is an obstructionist IN MANY AREAS. He's a hypocrite of the highest order.

SUPPORT JOHN THUNE for SD Senate so we can get Daschle out of his majority leader position. November 2002 will be here sooner than we think.

[goodnesswins]

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

Welllllll......you and your children must be VERY WEAK.....to have TWO WORDS so affect you.....GOD forbid someone yells an obscenity at you.....(Oh, that would be OK?)

[RonF]

"In any case, I'd hate to see the repurcussions if this ruling is allowed to stand. It would be a declaration that we are no longer a Nation under God. As such, I'd bet there would be some serious consequences associated with that."

No, if that was true, the Pledge would have to be changed to say, "One nation, not under God, ....". Removing the words isn't a declaration that the USA is not a nation under God, it's a declaration that government should be silent on the matter. Silence is neither a positive or negative declaration. It's silence.

[FormerLurker]

No, if that was true, the Pledge would have to be changed to say, "One nation, not under God, ....". Removing the words isn't a declaration that the USA is not a nation under God, it's a declaration that government should be silent on the matter. Silence is neither a positive or negative declaration. It's silence.

No, the deliberate removal of such language is an implicit declaration that this nation is no longer 'Under God'.

[Helix]

"What group on this thread would be more likely to feel morally justified marching people into a gas chamber who did not conform to their beliefs?"

Seriously. Think about what you just said.

I have. I imagine it would be the same groups who did the marching last time. The Nazis who marched off members of the Jewish religion and the Stalinist who murdered thousands of Christians.

I honestly don't care if other people are atheists. That's their decision. I am not threatened if they don't want to pray, or believe in God. I don't attend any church, myself. However, I have the right to speak about God and I don't believe that the religion of atheism's imagined "right to shut-up anyone I disagree with" trumps my freedom of expression.

[RonF]

"No, the deliberate removal of such language is an implicit declaration that this nation is no longer 'Under God'."

I'm afraid we'll have to disagree on this. To my mind, the deliberate removal of this language is an explicit declaration that the government has no business requiring that people declare themselves on the issue either way, either by saying the words "under God", or by having them be silent while other kids are saying the words.

Kids should not be required to declare their belief in God, or lack thereof, by the public schools. The debate doesn't belong there.

[gunshy]

Our government is incapable of teaching our children anything of import. The public schools are full of people pushing agendas and not teaching schools.

I am 64 years old and I have two children, ages 6 and twelve. I do not trust the government to teach either of them. I will teach them history as I was fortunate to be taught and I will help guide them in their religious beliefs if they so choose.

Our government is broken and corrupt and it will not get any better until the people of this nation stand up to the tyranny that has embraced our land.

[RonF]

"However, I have the right to speak about God and I don't believe that the religion of atheism's imagined "right to shut-up anyone I disagree with" trumps my freedom of expression."

Of course you have the right to speak about God. What you don't have is the right to have a government agency organize such speech, or provide a forum for it.

[rintense]

Our government is incapable of teaching our children anything of import. The public schools are full of people pushing agendas and not teaching schools.

But isn't the Pledge one of the few things that holds a sense of history and morality?

No one is saying trust the government to teach your children. If that were the case, everyone here would be preaching the kudos of private/home schools. I, for one, am a proud graduate of a public school system where I was encouraged to find my own truth. And look what I've become today... LOL.

[balls]

Now you are being silly. It's not about "two words". It's about protecting our Constitution and not letting faith in any religion, or lack thereof, put anybody at a disadvantage in this wonderful country. Wake up and adjust your patriotism!

[goodnesswins]

"put anyone at a disadvantage"??????????? Hearing "under God?" said in the Pledge of Allegiance......oh....poor.... .baby. I am awake....believe me, very awake....

[WakeUpChristian]

The decision was written by Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, whom Senate President Pro Tem Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., called an "atheist lawyer."

"I hope his name never comes before this body for any promotion, because he will be remembered," said Byrd.

"Our founding fathers must be spinning in their graves," said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. "What is next? Will the courts now strip 'so help me God' from the pledge taken by new presidents? This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok."

[RonF]

"I don't plan on removing "under God" at my kid's Boy Scout gatherings."

Nothing in the Court's decision would require you to. We are a private organization and can have the kids say anything we please.

[Helix]

"Of course you have the right to speak about God. What you don't have is the right to have a government agency organize such speech, or provide a forum for it. "

According to the quote attributed to the gentleman who brought suit, the problem was not that his daughter had to participate. The problem was she had to listen.

Please see article here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo cus/news/706612/posts

Does this mean that we can insist that mosques stop broadcasting the call to prayer when it can be heard on a "public" street?

Do we stop all mention of God on the radio which is regulated by the publicly funded FCC?

Do we stop all mention of atheism in public schools since "theos" is the greek word for God? You have to discuss the concept of God before you can discuss the concept of NO God.

Or is "equal protection under the law" an antiquated belief as well?

How far do we want to take it?

[Spiff]

Idea for FReeper Activism:

Independence Day is coming. In my area, and I'm sure in many other areas, the fireworks display includes some sort of pre-fireworks programs. In my town, we have the 36th Army Band play a brief concert, have a few fireworks and cannons go off during the 'Overture of 1812' and then we have someone sing the National Anthem right before the fireworks begin.

The program has never included a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance before. In light of the disgusting, anti-American decision by the 9th and in my patriotic desire to resist tyranny, I called the director of the fireworks display and suggested he add the Pledge to the program. He loved the idea and the reason behind it! So, in my town thousands of people are going to celebrate their independence on Independence Day by asserting it and reciting the Pledge on city property at a city-sponsored event. You can rest assured that we will emphasize the "under God" portion of the Pledge.

Independence day is fast approaching. Many FReepers plan on attending various 4th of July events to include fireworks displays, etc. Get on the phone now and do as I did and get the full Pledge of Allegiance to be recited at the events in your area.

[rustbucket]

No, the deliberate removal of such language is an implicit declaration that this nation is no longer 'Under God'.

What about all those years when the Pledge did not contain the words, "under God"?

Perhaps you feel we should include the words, "under God", with every mention of the name of this country, the United States. To do otherwise, of course, might be an implicit declaration that this nation was not "under God".

[RonF]

"I believe religious persecution is why they came over on the Mayflower but they obviously wasted their time."

An excellent example, although surely not the way you intended it.

The Puritans were a Christian religious sect founded in England who found the C of E far too close to the Roman Catholic Church, and wanted to revamp it. When they failed to do so, and the political and religious climate in England turned against them so that they were subject to religious persecution, they then left England for Holland. When they found that Holland was far too liberal, and that their children were absorbing such ideas, they then moved on to Massachusetts.

Whereupon they imposed religious persecution of their own to the point that unbelievers were fined, flogged, imprisoned, tarred and feathered, exiled, and executed. They sought to avoid persecution of their own faith, but had no intent of relieving anyone else. It was likely the most prominent example of the evil results of tieing together religion and government in America, and it has influenced the formation of our current government, and our laws, down to the present day.

[AntiDemocrat]