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.

[CecilRhodesGhost]

Byrd... wasn't he a former member of the KKK?

[AmishDude]

Thanks for your comments. I figured, as long as we're dissecting the First Amendment, we'd better go whole hog.

[rudypoot]

"An unalienable right cannot be taken away by government. Freedom of religion CAN be taken away by government. Therefore it is NOT an unalienable right."

the word "right" referred to in the USC is a freedom RECOGNIZED by the Constitution, not a freedom given by the government. If the government didn't give it, then it can't take it away, savy?

[Zack Nguyen]

Popular speech and popular religions don't need protecting--just the unpopular things.

What?! Religion doesn't need protection?! Would you call Christianity a "popular" religion these days! Certainly not to the 9th Circuit!

Consider this: You have rights because God gave them to you. If an understanding of God is taken out of public life, then your rights are left ot the whim of government. God gives rights...government protects them. That is all.

[Lazamataz]

See, he ain't so bad...

See this.

[Constitution Day]

While on FR, I have come to that realization as well.

[floriduh voter]

Sorry, IGNORE LAST PHONE NUMBER - TYPO.

HERE'S THE CORRECT NUMBER FOR THE CAPITOL: 1-800-648-3516. Floriduh Voter

[Texaggie79]

The heathens can leave out Under God if they want......

[B Knotts]

Real Player for UNIX/Linux

[Spiff]

Today he gets a Snacky™. Good Dubya! Good boy! Good conservatism, Dubya! :o)

Yeah, sure. I bet that Snacky is shaped like a big pretzel and you know how Bush doesn't get along with pretzels. We're on to your game, Laz. :^)

[hobbes1]

YES HG.. I was coming to make that point I found THIS...

"Under God" Under Appeal

Physician Michael Newdow of Broward County, Florida, has appealed the dismissal of his 1998 lawsuit seeking to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and restore its original language dating to 1892. The part-time resident of Fort Lauderdale is suing on behalf of his daughter, 5.

U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages dismissed the case because his daughter wasn't yet school-age. Newdow argues that permitting his daughter to sit out the pledge, as provided for by a 1940's Supreme Court case, still subjects her to outsider status and religious dogma in school. The court has not considered the pledge since it was amended to include "under God" in 1948, although it recently let stand a federal court ruling dismissing a similar challenge out of Chicago. The U.S. House didn't open each daily session with the pledge until 1988, and the U.S. Senate didn't follow suit until June 24 this year.

[phasma proeliator]

It would appear that this would be more suitable for you to wipe the tears away with.

[NeoCrusade]

Viva is exactly right. Christianity is the majority religion in America today, as much as you feel it is "under threat".

[CecilRhodesGhost]

IDEA: maybe there can be public lashings for those who do not add "under God" to the pledge... sort of like in certain other countries where the same fate is met if a beard is shaved off.

[mhking]

US Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121

No, I don't have the toll free number for Congress...

[rudypoot]

Yep, Federal judges can be removed.

[tpaine]

Whatever.
--- You're dismissed.

[aristeides]

Who's the senator from Alabama who just called the Ninth Circuit a "rogue circuit"? Shelby?

[hobbes1]

See above.

[NeoCrusade]

Yes! A good American must say "under God" to prove it! Otherwise, exile!