[rwfromkansas]

If you think the Pledge is unconstituional, refute all of that, please.

[rwfromkansas]

bump

[DoughtyOne]

the Case of the Freeper FRiva Feva is under scrutiny - super-sleuths are welcomed
come resolve the way to yesterday's Target Post, you're not out of the running yet
win your registration fees to the FRive Las Vegas Conference if you dare

[eFudd]

The pledge is not in the constitution nor is it refered to in the constitution nor is the Federal Government given the specific right to create a pledge.

See Ammendment 10.

[scholar]

How could an informed FReeper possibly think that The Pledge is unconstitutional?

[FreeTally]

I sometimes think that there are a couple dozen freepers here who could argue these types of cases before a court better than the highest paid lawyer.

MAKE the court explain how something can be "unconstitutional" when such acts, laws or expressions were made and done by those who WROTE the constitution.

I agree with those who say there were flaws in the constitution(slavery, voting, etc), but those are on a different scale then "religious" things that courts rule on these days.

[traditionalist]

You should also point out that the phrase "separation of Church and State" appears nowhere in the Constitution. That phrase is Jefferson's invention, and he had no role in the framing of the constitution.

All the constitution says is that "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."

[smith288]

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Fran just ruled that the Pledge of
Allegience is unconstitutional because it has the word "God" in it.

Now, to clear up any confusion, there is no law "separating the church and
state". There is a law however saying "Congress shall make no law
respecitng any established religion".

God is used by 3 of the 4 major religions that come to mind. Jews,
Christians and Muslims. Muslims call God, Allah which means God in arab so
it really is no different. There is no specific preference to any certain
religion and the Pledge of Allegience is not requiered by law to be uttered
but is optional. You may even omit parts at which you do not agree with.
I choose "for Liberty and Justice for all" for reasons I would rather not
go into. Maybe another time.

This is an outright attack on the very foundation our nation stands upon.
The Supreme Court begins each session with "God save the United States and
this honorable court", our money has "In God we trust", Ohio's state motto
is "With God, all things are possible". All these are time tested (but
have been previously attacked) proving we submit our nation to a greater
power more than ourselves. It doesnt matter if its Budda or Zues, God is
undetermined regarding which religion it speaks of if any. It shows how
intolerant militant Atheists can be when they hear the word "God" in the
meaning of something greater than themselves.

The purpose of my email is to prove that elected officials who classify
themselves as Democrats with liberal ideology have assigned these judges in
the 9th Circuit Ct of Appeals. What we need is judges who will stand up
for our Constitution, not legislate from the bench striking down laws that
doesn't fit their agenda.

Currently Tom Daschle, Majority leader of the Senate, is holding up George
Bush's nominations to vacant appeals court positions around the nation due
to a litmus test simply because they are conservative. The job Tom Daschle
and Patrick Leahy (Judiciary Committee Chairman) is supposed to be doing
is advising and consenting on whether or not the nominated qualifies to be
a judge. If so, he will be sent to the Senate floor for a vote for
approval. Each and every nomination Bush sends to the commitee, Daschle
and his colleagues find ways to obstruct the nomination from even going to
a floor vote based on ideology that isnt part of a judge decision making
(they make decisions on the interpretation of law).

An example is Judge Charles Pickering from Mississippi. He was endorsed by
the American Bar Assoc. and numerous republican and democrats alike across
the country. Tom Daschle and his fellow Democrat friend Patrick Leahy
accused Pickering of being a racist and not fit for the position. Some
background on Pickering, and something that stands out like a sore thumb,
was that he defended and supported the civil rights of African-Americans
during the 50's and 60's. He was a lawyer for many racist cases and proved
to be a friend of the rights movement. Since Pickering is a proclaimed
conservative and believes in smaller govt, Daschle and Leahy has turned the
nomination into a virtual witch hunt. Disregarding truth for ideology.
Same goes for others nominations Bush has sent through.

What I need is for you to just send this to everyone you know who might not
be interested in politics but is very much interested in keeping America
from sliding down into religious persecution, bench legislation and an all
around moral downward spiral our nations founders wouldnt recognize (as if
they do now).

Please look at the sentor who represents you, make sure he/she fits your
way of thinking, if he doesn't, it is your duty, our forefathers fought so
hard to grant us, to place those who will respect the Constitution as a
standard to how our nation is run, not a societal meter to how outdated it
is.

Thank you,
Smith288

[toenail]

The real outrage is that the federal government has no authority to do anything at all about education, and the founding fathers would be irate at the centralized indoctrination system we have.

[Tijeras_Slim]

You have to be a liberal, with a penchant for "emanations" and "penumbras". I always thought that the section of the 1st Amendment dealing with religion was pretty self-explanatory.

[NEWwoman]

I don't think the pledge is unconstitutional.

But I'll get it a shot of what the other side is thinking.

1. That was then, this is now.
2. Revisionist history omits all the history mentioned in the post. Or the old excuse, these white European males had slaves back then and women were not allowed to vote and that was wrong. So they must be wrong about mentioning God and we must be tolerant.
3. No desire to be accountable to any Supreme Being, other than themselves. (Doing what is right in their own eyes.)
4. Above everything, we must be tolerant.

Side note: I recall saying the pledge every day as a child. There were some kids of particular religious beliefs, which it was forbidden to say the pledge. (JWs) They stepped out in hall as we said it, so it wasn't mandatory. I wasn't aware that any suffered harrassment for not saying the pledge.

[mil-vet]

Did a search - found this hadn't been posted since sometime in 2001, so at the risk of incurring "this has been previously posted" flames, I suggest you might want to check this link out:

Red Skelton on the Pledge of Allegiance. Note especially his last line (as it appears on this web site).

Oh, the shame of liberal pond scum!

[Nancee]

Hi "rwfromkanas"!

There is a "poll" on CourtTV, on this matter, and it is in need of some "S-E-R-I-O-U-S" FREEPING.

Thanks!

Nancee

[Jeff Head]

The pledge is an exercise of my right to free speech and my right to freely exercise my religious beliefs ... both enumerated and vouchsafed in the COnstitution much more clearly that this blatant attempt at judicial activism.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."- John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address

SET ASIDE THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT RULING

IMPEACH THE RASCALS! ROUTE THE VIPERS OUT!

FR Thread HERE

[Charles_Bingley]

This is how the Court decided: "In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation “under God” is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism...The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers “that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” Lynch, 465 U.S. at 688 (Sandra O’Connor, J., concurring)."

"In conclusion, we hold that (1) the 1954 Act adding the words “under God” to the Pledge, and (2) EGUSD’s policy and practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with the added words included, violate the Establishment Clause. The judgment of dismissal is vacated with respect to these two claims, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with our holding. Plaintiff is to recover costs on this appeal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED."

NEWDOW v. U.S. Congress, No. 00-16423, 2002 U.S. App. FINDLAW.COM (9th Cir. June 26, 2002).

[lavaroise]

Atheists and this court are not under god, but claim to be above god or equal hence!!!

Atheists are defining their gods. The under God principle is not, atheists' is an above God principle. What makes them so sinless???

[Metal4Ever]

If you think the Pledge is unconstituional, refute all of that, please.

I don't have to refute any of that to support the notion that adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance violates my interpretation of the Establisment Clause (I say "my interpretation" because all opinions on the issue are interpretations of one form or another). Just because someone who helped draft the Constitution then goes out and does something that in my opinion would violate part of the Constitution, doesn't mean on it's face that what he did was constitutional.

Throughout our history men in power have done things that are unconstitutional. Are we now to say that those things were constitutional because they were done? Just because something is done by the President or by an act of Congress does not by default make it Constitutional. The Lincoln haters would certainly agree on that point.

That said, here's the refutation you requested.

Points 1 and 2 have no bearing on the Establishment Clause whatsoever and therefore are meaningless. The Establisment Clause specifically targets Congress not individuals. These points are Strawmen.

I need more context on Point 3. When was this law supported? Before or after the Constitution was written? On it's face I would say though this is also a meaningless point because The Establishment Clause does not pertain to State Legistlatures (although it has been applied to state legislatures which I think is a mistake).

Point 4 is meaningless. This issue hasn't come up before a Court of Law so no decision has been made to either remove or keep the religious symbols in the Judiciary. But I would say that this does not violate the Establishment Clause because the Clause does not pertain to the Judiciary and as far as I know Congress has passed no law mandating those things there.

Point 5 is meaningless. Or would you argue that Brown vs. Board of Education was a mistake because Plessy vs. Fergeson had been the established law for decades? Like it or not both Conservatives and Liberals change their views over time. Nobody today would support Plessy.

Point 6 is meaningless. Regardless of what the Northwest Ordinance currently says (if the law is still valid and I'll take your word for it if it is) nobody has standing to challenge it on the Establishment Clause because we haven't admitted a new State in decades and in all likelihood never will again. You have to keep in mind that some of these things that technically violate the Establishment Clause have to be challenged before they can be ruled on their Constitutionality. I doubt anyone's challenged it. But that doesn't make it Constitutional.

notice that this one indicates a view of the Establishment clause that is of a modern conservative, that it strictly refers to a legal establishment of a faith

Fair enough. Here's something for you to chew on then. If there is no faith involved in the phrase "Under God", why are so many people complaining about how this decision is an attack on Religion? If the Pledge is so religion neutral and God is just a being, why all the Religious rhetoric then? It seems to me that an awful lot of people are complainging on religious grounds to a phrase they claim has no religious significance. It seems to me they are undermining the very claims they seek to make.

Also if you want to include people's commments about the laws they write as basis for what they wanted to attain, then Eisenhower's comments alone make the modified pledge a violation of The Establishment Clause.

Please keep this in mind. I thought this was a stupid decision. It's nitpicking. It's not worth the struggle. The dissenting judge was correct in that regard. It only succeeds in riling people and diverting attention from more pressing matters. The Pledge in its current form doesn't bother me and I wouldn't seek to take the Government to court over it or a bunch of other Establishment Clause cases that we've seen over the years (particularly X-mas scenes). But I think that technically it was a Constitutionally correct decision.

[Jay W]

How is the "under God" unconstitutional?

It isn't unconstitutional.

In over 50 years of its being part of the Pledge, it has not led one bit to any establishment of religion in the United States.

[ppaul]

Petition to the President of the United States and Members of Congress

I speak as an American citizen. The recent decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco where the Pledge of Allegiance was ruled Unconstitutional is an attack on America by way of the legal system. We are indeed "One Nation Under God."

To declare that anyone who pledges allegiance to the Flag of our Country is breaking the law is to declare the President of the United States and every member of Congress to be law breakers.

It has become abundantly clear that the two judges that voted for this must be impeached and removed from office. Please use the authority that you have been invested with and immediately vote to impeach judges Stephen Reinhardt and Alfred Goodwin.

To sign the Petition, click HERE.

[goldstategop]

Its obvious that judge who just stayed his own ruling, was completely clueless about American history!

[Born in a Rage]

My understanding is that the judges found that having children recite the phrase "under God" in a public setting in which other children who may be atheist are 'required' to attend is, in fact, coercion (sp?) (because they are being 'forced' to listen) I guess they didn't consider that the parent has the option to homeschool...

I also guess that the same judges wouldn't consider it 'coercion' when children who have creationist parents and/or beliefs are subjected to the theory of evolution. They also probably wouldn't consider it 'coercion' when students who are at the ripe old age of 5 years old are subjected to books like "Heathers 2 Mommies" and other information that their parents don't want them 'taught' at school.

The whole thing is crazy, jmo.