9TH CIRCUIT COURT: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Fox News ^

[RonF]

"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."

That's right. She had to listen to the government both organize religious speech, and provide a forum for it. Which the government can't do.

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

Not unless it's under a general noise complaint that's independent of the content. The forum is the private mosque, not the public street, and it's not being organized by the government.

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

No, the whole intent of the FCC is to regulate the airwaves to ensure that there is equal access to a limited resource. Past issues of obscenity, it's not there to regulate speech. It's there to ensure free speech. Since the airwaves are supposed to be a public forum (which schools are not), religious speech on the airwaves is protected, unless the government itself is running the radio/TV station in question, I'd think.

"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."

Hard enough to get the kids to understand English, I don't think we have to worry about them hearing Greek.

[stands2reason]

I will not be forced by you

You're actually being forced into religion? Give me a large break.

[Diamond]

The First Amendment is clear on this issue. Better come to grips with it as it is finally becoming the law of the land.

The First Amendment 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...

I cannot find any references to helix", "venue", "spouting", "religiosity", or any reference to a prohibition directed at any individual in the first Amendment.

and the 9th circuit court has interpreted this Amendment for those who have difficulty understanding it.

Oh, never mind.

sigh. Cordially,

[tpaine]

It isn't commie 'propoganda', it's Koestlers opinion of why creeps like you become off the wall fanatics. - Lot of truth in it.

[tpaine]

Except when you malcontentedly get cranky, and don't ignore me. -- What a dumb dane.

[tortoise]

I really don't see what the big deal is one way or the other. It is largely inconsequential. Yeah, it doesn't pass the smell test for the Constitution, but it isn't as though it was a significant issue in the first place. Who really gives a damn about the Pledge of Allegiance? I routinely recited that bloody thing as a child, but it didn't make me any more or less a patriotic American than I already was. I think the whole practice is relatively stupid to begin with. Adding or removing "God" to the equation doesn't change that.

But, I will add that the people who think there is something important or special about having God in it (which was put there by my own relatives i.e. Eisenhower) are completely looped. Talk about overstating the inconsequential.

[baseballfanjm]

Could one interpret this ruling as a violation of the ninth amendment? Sensibly, I mean.

[Tired of Taxes]

"contrary to popular belief, the pledge is not a pledge to God. The phrase "under God" is a phrase that describes the nation. "

By saying "one nation, under God", the pledge is asserting that there is a "god" and that our nation is under it. I don't see much difference between a pledge to "God" or a pledge to "one nation, under God."

"You cannot penalize 95% of Americans because one father and two judges are mind-numbed idiots... "

This is not supposed to be a majority-rule nation. If 95% of the people wanted all firearms confiscated, should the gov't do so? No, because we have a Second Amendment right. Again, it would be just as wrong for a public schoolteacher to tell students that there is no god, or that religion is bad, and so on. Unfortunately, with school and state mixed together, we will continue to encounter these problems.

[Tired of Taxes]

One would think that the atheists could simply stand mute for those two words if they believe that this nations is not/cannot be "under God", but we don't live in a society that can rely on mature behavior or decent parental advice from adults,

But the children are in the classroom without their parents. They're going to do what the teacher says, and they're going to go along with their peers. Also, the phrase "under God" wasn't in the original pledge. There's no reason why it should've been added.

If the pledge is a TOTAL affront to them, let them remove their kids from the public schools just as the religious Right families do due to the influx of non-Christian and anti-Christian ideas.

My children do not attend public school, either. Unfortunately, we're still required to pay for everyone else's public school education through our property taxes.

Thanks for your other comments. The one about "mandating a pledge to freedom" was a good one. It does seem quite ironic.

[timestax]

recited that bloody thing

I think you gave yourself away Limey, Americans don't use the word "bloody". Go back to "bloody" Britain and stay there!!

[tortoise]

I think you gave yourself away Limey, Americans don't use the word "bloody". Go back to "bloody" Britain and stay there!!

Instead of proving that you are a waste of flesh, why don't you demonstrate that your IQ exceeds that of a cabbage. I was born in the U.S. and my ancestors have been in this country since the late 1600's and are documented to have fought in the revolution against the British -- how about yours? Furthermore, I have personally served in the infantry as an American soldier and bear the physical scars of that service, which I proudly wear. Incidentally, I am not a Limey, I'm mostly ethnically Scottish and proud of it (surprisingly pure considering that we've been in the U.S. for the better part of 300 years).

It is ignorant cockroaches like you that make this country a dung heap. Piss off. I'm twice the American you could ever hope to be.

[Diamond]

She had to listen to the government both organize religious speech, and provide a forum for it. Which the government can't do.

With due respect, the Establishment Clause does not mention "religious speech". It does refer to an "establishment of religion", which I believe at that time referred primarily to an ecclesiastical establishment of a national Christian denomination, as evidenced by Madison's first draft of the Amendment, and by Blackstone's interchangeable use of the terms "national church," "our present establishment," and "the national religion".

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prevented] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline or practices. Clearly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the States.

THOMAS JEFFERSON, JEFFERSON'S WRITINGS (1905).

In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercise suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state and church authorities. . .

Thomas Jefferson, Second Inaugural Address (1805)

"The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in . . . the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is merely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States." Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Mr. Hammond, 1821.

Cordially,

[timestax]

ha ha ha, what a joke!

[Cindy]

A thought worth pondering..."All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind are conviced that the fate of Empires depends on the education of youth." -Aristotle

[WellsFargo94]

That's an irrational statement. How can I substitute my god in what the teacher says?

When a class is reciting the Pledge you can insert whatever diety you want, and that my friend is freedom of speech and freedom of worship. If you have no God then do what a kid in my class did and stay politely seated.

[WellsFargo94]

What if you don't worship any gods OR you believe that the name of god is too sacred to profane by including it in a secular pledge?

If you don't worship any Gods, then stay politely seated, like a kid in my class did.

If you are worried about the name of God being too sacred, have no fear "God" is not His name YHWH is known as the Tetragrammation, and YHWH is the four consonants that stand for the original name which, even thousands of years ago, had been forgotten.

[E Rocc]

Did this mean that they had renounced Christianity? No. Just its role in government

Even this is a gross overstatement. The emphasis was in not allowing a church to enforce sectarian edicts. Even those who were Deists would not and did not take the stand that Christianity had no place in government.

Maybe not, but a Christian did:

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

-James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785

-Eric

[E Rocc]

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.

This is out of context. The treaty with the Sultans and Beys had to do with an inherent animosity with Islam that was part of the relationship between the Islamic powers and many of the European powers, and that both of these sides regarded as an underpinning of their nationhood.

From the treaty itself:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion--as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims]

How can "context" make that statement into anything other than what it is?

-Eric

[philman_36]

Well, you'll just have to excuse me for raining on the parade, but I'm damn well going to speak my mind. I've thought about this for several hours now.

I don't understand why everyone is so upset with all of this now. People have been giving lip service to the PoA for years. It says distinctly that our allegiance is to "the flag of the United States of America" and "to the Republic for which it stands" (represents).
How can everyone get so upset now? Over half of America, and an amazing portion of FReepers, don't even know our proper form of government and now 90% of America is upset because "under G_d" is stricken from the PoA? I doubt if such a fuss would be raised if it were to be changed to "and to the Democracy for which it stands".
Funny, nobody got upset that it wasn't in the original and wasn't added for over 60 years! Most people in America at that time believed that the whole world, not just America, was "under G_d" whether they wanted it to be or not. As a Christian I still believe the whole world is "under G_d". Whether someone else believes it or not doesn't matter to me one iota!
I guess there really is no allegiance to the Republic after all, whether one is a Christian, a Diest, a Muslim or an athiest, which is what the real issue should be about.
Even Bellamy didn't dare mess that up and he was a Socialist! He couldn't fool the people of that day. They understood that America wasn't a democracy. It's so much easier to do so today with dumb-downed America.
That, to me anyway, is what the real goal is, to draw attention away from "the Republic" and isn't it working great...no further discussion on the rest of the PoA is needed, we'll just concentrate on "under G_d". America has got to "export Democracy" ya know! G-D knows we don't have too many goods and products to export!
Yet, in spite of its Socialist origins, its use in a blatant marketing campaign and its association with the NEA, I personally like the PoA and I like "under G_d" in the PoA. Moreso because it irks so many that it's in there than any other reason. However, I like "and to the Republic for which it stands" the best.

Oh, why bother. "Nothing up my sleeve" said the magician as he began his trick.
When they tell me that I can't sing "G_d Bless America" I'll really start to worry.

I can agree with this concept though...Perhaps the time has come to see that this allegiance should be to the U.S. constitution and not to a piece of cloth. John W. Baer

History of the Motto "In God We Trust"