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.
Give me an honest poor Mexican any day, than the dishonest rich white socialists of the Democratic Party.
Dashole can kiss my irish @SS
"We are now entering a time of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: We will see a maximum, if indirect, effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism which uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of western civilization to shrink freedom, even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage."
M. J. Sobran wrote:
“The Framers of the Constitution … forbade the Congress to make any law ‘respecting’ the establishment of religion, thus leaving the states free to do so (as several of them did); and they explicitly forbade the Congress to abridge ‘the free exercise’ of religion, thus giving actual religious observance a rhetorical emphasis that fully accords with the special concern we know they had for religion. It takes a special ingenuity to wring out of this a governmental indifference to religion, let alone an aggressive secularism. Yet there are those who insist that the First Amendment actually proscribes governmental partiality not only to any single religion, but to religion as such; so that tax exemption for churches is now thought to be unconstitutional. It is startling to consider that a clause clearly protecting religion can be construed as requiring that it be denied a status routinely granted to educational and charitable enterprises, which have no overt constitutional protection. Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it. … “What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And—I repeat—the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs.” (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 51-52, 60-61.)
M. J. Sobran also said, “A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it” (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 58-59).
Nice little fuel to the fire that the 9th Circuit provides. This'll probably be used by these wackos as a perfect justification for further terror attacks.
"See the godless Great Satan admits that they are against God!"
Not that these wackos need any more fuel for their hate -- but I bet that we hear this from them sooner rather than later.
LOL, gee I wish you'd get off the fence and tell us what you really think ;-)
(i love it!)
No. Nor have they ruled the pledge unconstitutional. Nor have they impeded your freedom to say the pledge, in whichever form. What they've ruled is that an agent of the state may not impose "God" on anyone through the pledge.
DEMAND. Live or die with it; the MAJORITY of people want it......I'm sick to death of the minority ruling!
Not that simple - he may feel his rights were impinged, but he does not have the right to impose his rights upon me and everyone else.
If he feels so strongly, then he should have placed his child in a school where this was not an issue. The other side of this issue is that this doctor filed this case once before in South Florida. He lost there, and threatened to bring this suit in another part of the country. So what did he do? He went to the Granola state, where he was bound to win.
I'm sorry, this is nothing short of a shot across the bow of those who hold this country's values dear. Dr. Michael Newdow of Sacramento (formerly of Broward Co., FL) has, with this act of simple terrorism, done what many others have tried to do and failed - this is as heinous an assault as would be the removal of the American Flag. This is an assault from within, that the SCOTUS must not allow to stand. Not only that, the judge that made this wrong-headed decision should stand down for impeachment proceedings against him, in order that he be removed from the bench.
Dr. Newdow is a member of several organizations whose stated goals include the exclusion of the Pledge and the removal of "In God We Trust" as the national motto - and by extension, removing it from our money.[/rant mode]
Yes, I believe you can find this argument in the Communist Manifesto.
A perfect example of why we need to abolish government schools. That way people who do not want their children to have to make pledges which they do not believe in will have a choice. For or against.
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.