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.

[The Iceman Cometh]

.....and this just in

Satan approves of Court's Ruling

Satan, the dark prince, announced through a press release that his continued efforts to undermine the society of the United States has taken another step with the 9th Circuit Court's ruling today.

"My work is paying off" Satan is quoted as saying

"California has been a fertile ground of captured souls", He continues.

Satan finishes the press release by announcing the efforts to reclaim the House of Representatives and finish off the country by getting Hillary Rodham Clinton elected president.

[AmishDude]

I'll go one further: Since the First Amendment is being interpreted in such an absurd abstraction, I contend that every set of beliefs (particularly those based on faith) constitutes a religion -- Confucianism, communism and even atheism included.

Why does a set of communist beliefs have more rights than a set of Christian beliefs?

[Paleo Conservative]

Next week....

The 9th Circuit Court declares the Constitution unconstitutional!

(joking...I hope)

They would do that with at straight face.

[Moomah]

Just heard the guy who brought the suit interviewed. When asked if he was fearful for his family's safety he said yes. And when asked what he was doing to counteract that ... his said (and I'm not kidding) ... "Well, I have an alarm system on my house, and I'm praying."

Praying!!! I wonder to whom he is praying. What a farce.

[Paul Ross]

If so, when it was revised to say "UNDER GOD" by Congress it was redeemed from any such origination.

[CecilRhodesGhost]

Country music star Charlie Daniels is on the Fox News Channel right now. He is attacking this new decision... along with the previous decision to remove prayer from school.

[Wondervixen]

May GOD have mercy on these moron's souls if, on or by the 4th of July, we are hit with the rumored wave of "Bin Laden drive-by's" the Al Qaida are hinting at as their next round to follow September 11th, because we'll kill em with our bare hands ourselves!

[Mo1]

Need to be a little larger

415-556-9800
Give the judge a call!!!!

[RetiredArmy]

Another leftist ruling from the liberal 9th Circuit. All the judges are pure libs and spurt out the liberal bias from the bench. Maybe Chicken Little had it right after all. The communist within are winning.

[WRhine]

HERE IT COMES: Hannity saying this is DASCHLE'S fault for holding up the nominations. Let Daschle say this is a great ruling

Of course he won't but this perverse ruling will certainly help the Republicans in Nov.

[mhking]

415-556-9800

I love FNC!

[watchin]

Perhaps an atheist state, where religion is driven underground, would be more to their liking?

Maybe they'd like Beijing. If you're comparing the "under God" in the pledge of allegiance to the state of affairs in Afghanistan, maybe you'd like Beijing, too, where you'd be free of all of those pesky religious wackos.

A place where people are "free" to worship, as long as they don't offend anyone. In other words, in secret. A place where any open display of religion brands you as a counter-revolutionary enemy of the state, thereby enforcing a very real separation of church and state. A place where there is no God in sight - a virtual utopia of peace, tolerance, and goodwill - and no religion, too. Imagine.

May God save the USA from the "virtues" of the atheist state.

[SiKKuS]

BREAKING NEWS: HAVING MONEY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE OF "IN GOD WE TRUST" LOGO!!!! Please feel free to give me any money that is currently in your posession and I will gladly see that it is turned in to the proper comunis.. eh er I mean authorities........

[MJY1288]

LOL, I just heard that too, The judge should be a tad busy answering phones,

I never thought I would see the day when these stinking liberals would outlaw the Pledge of Alliegence. The 9th district has 24 appointed judges and 17 of them were appointed by Carter and Clinton, 12 by Clinton

[Mo1]

Don't know .. was in out out today .. but I don't think from today .. he's in Canada

[bonesmccoy]

Your failure to acknowledge a supreme being should not prevent my family from acknowledging a supreme being.

[FormerLurker]

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.

If you would like to read more about the Constitution, take a look at http://www.barefootsworld.net/consti11.html

I still challenge anybody to find a statement within the Constitution that requires this "separation of church and state" to where the 1st Amendment is now interpreted as "Congress shall not respect any religion, and will not allow the free exercise thereof"...

An excerpt from that page is presented below..

---

Article I

---

"Congress shall make no Law respecting the Establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free Exercise thereof;" ¹⁴¹

---

¹⁴¹ In the reign of Charles II, Parliament, for the purpose of compelling all persons to attend the established Church, passed (1665) The Conventicle Act making every one over sixteen years of age who attended a conventicle (any meeting for religious worship at which five persons were present besides the household) subject to imprisonment, with transportation beyond seas for the third offense. During the same reign it passed the Test Act requiring oaths in support of the established religion. Under those acts, which were not repealed until recent times, all nonconformists of whatever religious belief were very severely dealt with. Those acts hastened emigration to America, as did intolerance in continental countries.

"It is strange indeed," says Ridpath (Popular History of the United States", p. 128), "that the very men who had so recently, through perils by sea and land, escaped with only their lives to find religious freedom in another continent, should have begun their career with intolerance and persecution."

The established Church of England had been set up in several of the Colonies and taxes were levied for its support.

Madison and Jefferson had waged (1784) a battle in Virginia against the establishment, finally securing the passage of a law declaring that any interference by the civil authority with religious opinion is against natural right.

A clause like this failed of adoption in the Constitutional Convention. As a member of the first House of Representatives under the new Constitution, Madison brought up this Amendment. After the House had adopted it the Senate rejected it, but it was later re-instated by that body.

When Madison became President he vetoed (1811) a bill passed by Congress for incorporating a church organization because he held it contrary to this Amendment, and shortly thereafter he vetoed another which would make a gift of public lands to a church.

Before the Constitutional Convention sat several of the States had put in their constitutions clauses for religious freedom. All of them have such clauses now. The prohibition under consideration is against the Nation and not the State.

In 1890 the Supreme Court of the United States, concluding a great contest begun in the District Court of the Territory of Utah in 1887, held that the National Government had "a perfect right to prohibit polygamy and all other open offenses against the enlightened sentiment of mankind, not withstanding the pretense of religious convictions by which they may be advocated and practiced." ^{c84, c95}

It is of great interest to note that in the ensuing years since this Amendment was ratified that in the wording of the First Amendment, the third of the first twelve Amendment proposals, that in the true bill submitted to the states for ratification "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, . . . " , not " . . . an establishment of religion, . . . " The word "THE" is definitely more "declaratory and restrictive" than "AN". This fraudulent deception has allowed misconstruction of a very explicit restriction on the legislatures and the government. This changed wording appears in virtually all presentations of the 1st Amendment today, including the official NARA presentation. It was correctly presented in history books prior to the Civil War. The correct wording as presented to the States for ratification is shown in this image of the "True Bill". See the discussion of the first twelve Amendment proposals.

[Paul Ross]

And if appealed, I am not sure with Justice Souter and O'Connor we are going to see a reversal.

[tpaine]

To: Texaggie79

Required? The problem is that then the citizenship of an atheist can be called into question because they obviously wouldn't subscribe to the notion of this nation being "under god".

127 posted on 6/26/02 11:49 AM Pacific by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies | Report Abuse

]
To: Dimensio

No it does not. There is no pledge to that mentioned God in the pledge. Just the admittance that this nation was formed by believers and the majority views it as under God.
You must accept that because it is a fact not a belief, even if you don't believe in God.

152 posted on 6/26/02 11:52 AM Pacific by Texaggie79

---

Hmmm, - As usual tex, you're almost incoherent, -- but if I read you right, --- you claim we MUST all pledge that this nation is under Ikes '54 version of 'God' -- because a majority insists, --- and because God is mentioned in the declaration?

Say it isn't so.

[Protagoras]

I am a person who believes this country is MAJORITY MOB RULE........that's who.

There I fixed it for you.