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.
"So that we can prove we're better than the Nazis."
It's not you, he's a perpetual malcontent.
What about the above reasoning do you find unbelievable?
One flaw is that something as significant as the Pledge of Allegiance to Our Nation, has a legal weight comparable to a Constitutional amendment -- in other words it is INVIOLABLE BY ANY COURT. It is a PLEDGE taken under free will and has no true legal ramifications -- only moral ones.
Nonsense. The Constitution is the law of the land. The pledge has no legal standing as law. The court did not address the wording of the pledge in the abstract (which you would think by the irrational responses posted here), it addressed the case of an agent of the state reciting it in a public institution.
A PLEDGE is like a ethical contract, designed by the author in TERMS HE DETERMINES FIT.
So? That's fine for the author. It is not fine for a teacher leading a class in a state school.
I do not support mandatory pledges.
Then you agree with the court?
I am also meta-agnostic (I dont understand what I mean by God), but this ruling brings me more sadness and anger than the events of 9-11.
Absurdity. Get a grip.
If I had a flag I would burn it right now, this ruling symbolically marks the spiritual death of a nation, and I will not recognise this zombie-America as my own.
Anyone who blames this on 'three silly judges' is willfully blind to the maggots on her corpse.
I'm sorry - you mean to tell me that the inclusion of two words - "under God" - means that schools are endoctrinating religion!? Would you kindly tell me what religion that they are promoting? I would insist that most (if not all) religions have a single God (or god, if you insist) at the head of whatever pantheon that is central to their belief structure. The pledge acknowleges that fact, by not singling out the Christian nor Jewish nor Islamic nor any other perception of God.
I would say that this father is wrong to impose his beliefs on the masses.
In the Florida case (which the father lost by the way), the school offered the opportunity for his child to step out of the room or otherwise be excused from saying the pledge. The father insisted that this was not good enough, because his child should not have to listen to others recite the pledge in school. Hence his decision to move across the country and to bring his suit in a different court.
IT WAS REMANDED = not going to Supreme Court. (At least not now).
Chief Justice Rose Bird was on the state Supreme Court.
Not so fast, you're among like minded believers in America here, it is not time to give up the battle and leave the greatest hope for mankind in the hands of the moronic liberal tin foil hat wearing barbarians that are so unable to apply their miniscule intellects constructively that such an insane decision as this can be handed down during a war.
The discussion should center on what response should be made to this disgusting ruling.
I'd say it is not time yet for violent confrontation against these sixties era relics, I think that impeachment is the way to go. These sixth jerkuit schlameels MUST be removed by impeachment and the process has GOT to start NOW, we should be looking for a high profile person to head the effort.
Any suggestions people?
Now you know why the left operates through the courts.
Looks to me like the definition of 'conservative' just earned a greater scrutiny.
[LOL] I love it!
An addition. People may have missed it.
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.