Posted on 06/26/2002 7:53:53 PM PDT by Sabertooth
The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
The phrase prohibits Congress, and therefore the Federal government, from making any laws regarding religion. That right was left to the individual states, many of which had been settled by those fleeing religious persecution, and those states had established religions at the time of the revolution. The founders therefore meant to prohibit the federal government from meddling in religion.
The concept of "separation of church and state" is not found, nor implied in the First Amendment. It is the result of years of twisted interpretation by the judiciary.
The matter of the insertion of "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance by Congress was not, nor was it intended to be, establishment of a religion; it was merely the continuation of our founders and American society's traditional belief in the existence of a Supreme Being, as evidenced by the Declaration of Independence.
"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor." - George Washington, 1st President of the United States.
DITTO !!!!
No one is forced to recite it. This case is not about being forced to recite the Pledge -- it is about the recitation of the pledge, period. The SCOTUS has ruled previously that any child can refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance.
By impeaching the judges Bush et al won't advance judicial nominees. Better to punch the issue of "our judges wouldn't make this mistake."
That is right. The time has come to take bold action ourselves. Our "so-called" leaders such as Trent Lott has failed to lead. It is time for us to show the right way!
Before it's too late.
God Save America! (please)
You're right. My mistake. 'Only' since 1892.
But thanks for the gratuitous slap, anyway.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states,
are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
This has to be the most raped and pillaged admendment of the entire Constitution.
To even cite it anymore is to pay homage to the dearly departed. It is toothless.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist led the dissent (with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas). They concluded that the majority not only ``distorted existing precedent'' but added a measure of ``hostility to all things religious in public life.'' . As Mr. Justice Rehnquist put it, ``Neither the holding nor the tone of the (majority) opinion is faithful to the meaning of the Establishment Clause when it is recalled that George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of `public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.'''
The constitution protects our citizens from being forced into doing something unless they've been accused of a crime. One is not required to pledge the allegiance and any attempt is a violation of common sense and the right to practice their religion as they see fit. This includes the right NOT to worship a God.
The tenth amendment does not give the States license to violate rights.
If this is true then the fellow would have no standing in a court of law. Obviously he had standing else the court wouldn't have heard his case.
What got this guy's panties in a bunch is that his daughter had to listen to other people utter the word "God."
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.