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.

[iguanaman]

Wait... are they black? I thought we only lynched black people.

[Reo]

Look at what this decision has done.....over 500 posts in less than an hour and 15 minutes!..This ruling could be the catylist fot the biggest conservative uprising since 1994. A stupid decision like this can clear the fog and focus conservatve attention and dedication like the Contract for America did eight years ago. What a motivating, clarifying, and totally stupid bit of liberal action. This will boomerang hugely! Watch and enjoy the fun!

[watchin]

If there isn't any notion that Rights are GOD GIVEN, then those Rights are GRANTED by the GOVERNMENT. You see, God can be Jesus, Allah, G-D, or anything you see fit to believe. But there is the concept that the GOD that does in reality exist has given us certain, UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

If there is no GOD, then those Rights exist only by agreement, and can very easily be taken away.

Important words worth repeating.

[Miss Marple]

Regarding atheism and the Pledge, I have a question.

Now Christians and Jews and Muslims believe in a single God, and that is a tenet of their faith. Hindus believe in many gods, and Buddhists in no literal God. Atheists believe in no God, and apparently no life after death.

Now, since an atheist thinks there is no God and that we are all a bunch of simple minded fools, what harm does it do to hear the word? I mean, every day the child hears words like "Easter Bunny" and "tooth fairy" and "Santa Claus" and probably tales at Halloween about ghosts and goblins. If the atheist believes that God is fictional, what is the big deal about HEARING the word...it would be no different to the atheist than hearing the words "tooth fairy."

In my opinion this is a concerted attempt to undermine yet another part of traditional Americana.

[bonesmccoy]

What number was that????
(BUMP!)

[agrace]

Newdow does not allege that his daughter’s teacher or school district requires his daughter to participate in reciting the Pledge.3 Rather, he claims that his daughter is injured when she is compelled to “watch and listen as her stateemployed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that our’s [sic] is ‘one nation under God.’ ”

I can't even begin to find the words to respond to this.

[Sabertooth]

If it is blatantly unconstitutional, it is our duty to break the law.

So, you're finally going back to elementary school?

[mhking]

Majority does NOT rule in this country, and nor does it even matter.

Neither does Political Correctness, which is all this decision is based on...

[Howlin]

Meantime, school is neither the time nor the place to discuss religion in any broad sense, as this one.

Baloney.

[RonF]

Who would Mr. Story be?

[iguanaman]

Yeah, but isn't the common interpretation of the constitution since... well... God knows when, back in Jefferson's presidency... isn't the common interpretation that any law which endorses a religion necessarily excludes other religious traditions from that endorsement?

[Joe Brower]

These leftist whackos have gone too far.

I don't give a tinker's damn what any fruitcake court says about the Pledge -- I will say it whereever and whenever I damn well please. If they don't like it, they can kiss this:

[Mo1]

A caller is on Fox is making a great point ..

CALL OUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND TELL THEM HOW TICKED OFF WE ARE

[Viva Le Dissention]

Oh, this is some freedom we have, huh Saber? If you don't like it, go somewhere else?

Huh? What happened to liberty and freedom? Have you ever actually listened to the pledge you are ranting about? Liberty and justice for all?

So this is just liberty for Christians, I guess?

[FreeTally]

mindprison.com posted:I do not support mandatory pledges.

mlo replied: Then you agree with the court?

Saying the pledge IS NOT mandatory. They did not base their ruling on the basis of "the pledge is mandatory", the court said the words "under God" represent a State recognized religion. No one has to say the pledge, and no on has to say it like it is written. I think this may be knocked down by the SCOTUS on this basis, if they even appeal it there. This has been REMANDED to the lower court.

Damn, this thread gets more hysterical by the minute.

[ObfusGate]

After following this thread for the better part of the last hour I am persuaded that this ruling is a sinister plot to raise the blood pressure of Conservatives and bring about an epidemic of aneurysms and heart attacks.

These liberals can be mighty sneaky.

[backhoe]

I think this makes an excellent case for judical accountability-- or the lack thereof.

We have all heard the theory about how some levels of the judiciary "need to be isolated from the whims of public pressure, so they'll make the right- rather than the popular- decisions."

Well, here's proof why that's a failed theory- these guys need to be held accountable for their actions, like anyone else is. Maybe via election, so you can toss the bums out of office, or maybe by a review of peers- but there needs to be a way to reign in activist, or malicious, judges. Now!

[mhking]

If you don't like it, you can either deal with this inconvenience here, or find a benignly pluralistic Buddhist, Pagan, or atheist nation of your choosing.

Or in plain folk talk, "Delta is ready when you are!"

"I love you, man..." Can I have that Bud Light now?

[rintense]

Knew the money one would be next. Then it will be all federal buildings with the word God on them.

[Mo1]

What number was that????
(BUMP!)

1-415-556-9800
Judge Goodwin