[Civil Disobedience Now!] JUDGES WHO BANNED THE PLEDGE MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE BENCH

Catholic League ^ | 2-28-2003 | William Donohue

[Notwithstanding]

Catholic League president William Donohue commented on the decision reached today by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a challenge to its decision banning the Pledge of Allegiance because of the words “under God.” Here are his remarks:

“Two things need to be done immediately: teachers and students should practice civil disobedience and the judges must be impeached.

“It is up to the teachers in the nine western states affected by this decision to break the law: they should instruct their students on the meaning of civil disobedience and then practice it. All they need to do is call the cops and local TV reporters and then recite the Pledge of Allegiance in their presence. It needs to be shown on television all over the world that as the U.S. prepares to go to war to maintain the liberties symbolized in the Pledge, there are brave men, women and children at home who are prepared to fight tyranny on our own soil.

“Iraq’s problem is tyranny of the minority. Ironically, that’s our problem as well. But the Iraqi people at least stand to be liberated and have their tyrant deposed. We need to do the same with ours, albeit with different means: impeachment proceedings against the two federal judges who made this decision should commence as soon as possible. Make no mistake about it, it is not enough for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn this ruling. Judicial malpractice has been committed and those responsible must be removed from the bench. They should be removed not because most Americans disagree with them but because of jurisprudential incompetence.”

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"Our government is forbidden from endorsing specific religious viewpoints."

No it is not. The constitution bans the Congress passing laws that establish any religion.

I have been in a number of political and business campaigns where I have endored candidates or ideas. I have never established any candidates or ideas. There is a difference in the meaning of the word endorse and the work establish. Quit trying to equate them. They are not equal.

And if this ruling is unconstitutional, then the law that passed in 1954 must have established a religion. What is the name of that religion that did not exist before this law was passed?

[theymakemesick]

Hmm, LiberalBuster, you state it's "hardly worth changing something that had been in existence for 150 years?". Why do you want to change the Constitution of the United States of America?

[E Rocc]

For your info, I went to a public school.

So did I, after the decisions that took prayer and religion out of the public school curricula. As we were still taught individual responsibility and held responsible for our actions, we did fine. It's such responsibility, not religion, that is missing from today's schools.

-Eric

[theymakemesick]

Those are among some of the most beautiful and inspired paragraphs ever written by men. I thank GOD that He put such intelligent and brave men on Earth to voice them.

[E Rocc]

It was decided in 1943, at the height of the patriotic fervor associated with WWII, that West Virginia could not require children of Jehovah's Witnesses to say the pledge of allegiance. This was noncontroversial at the time and remains settled law.

It was to a degree controversial and remains so. Every so often we hear of a public school where students are sanctioned for not saying the Pledge.

So, no child can be required to say that which violates conscience. Hence, the child of this atheist could not be and cannot be required to say the pledge. A simple affirmation that this child was covered by the 1943 decision would have sufficed to bring relief to the plaintiff.

The controlling opinions here are the school prayer ones. A public school may endorse patriotism by giving it a spot in the classroom plan. It may not endorse religion in that manner.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

Everything is a matter of opinion. Only God is not. And how UNDER GOD endorses specific religious viewpoints. You again contradict yourself. It is a general acknowledgement of God.

A belief in God is definitely a religious belief. "One Nation Under God" even moreso.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

I was even thinking why do we make children hide their religion in schools

When this happens it is local districts doing it, and they may be liable to lawsuits themselves, under "free exercise". The courts have not forbidden anything other than public schools showing religious preference in the curriculum or secular based events. Things like bringing bibles to school, religious t-shirts, or even silent prayer in study hall or before class are by no means banned under the Supreme Court.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

Your point about the Constitution not including reference to God is not good logic. Yes, God is not mentioned. However, it is the document establishing the rules for the government. While I certainly agree that it is curious to not even have anything in the preamble of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence is what explained our philosophy of government. That is why God is mentioned there, while the Costitutition, which dealt with the nuts and bolts of how things would run, did not.

Remember that the Constitution was not even the first founding document. The Articles of Confederation were. They were scrapped and replaced by the Constitution.

The Declaration was principly an explanation of why we felt the need to revolt against British rule. It was not meant to establish the governing philosophy of the nation any more than Common Sense was. That was done first by the Articles and later by the Constitution.

It's not merely curious that the Preamble contained no reference to a deity. There is every reason to believe that it was quite intentional. Madison, while a Christian himself, was a firm believer in Separation.

-Eric

[kms61]

How is this different from teachers inciting their students to oppose war in Iraq? Public schools shouldn't be used for political organizing. Period.

One thing I see on FR over and over is a lack of consistency...If you're against uninformed busybody actors meddling in foreign policy, be against ALL of them, not just the ones you disagree with. And if you're against political indoctrination in public schools, be against ALL of it, whether it's an antiwar teach-in in Oakland, or Pledge Civil Disobedience elsewhere.

Frankly, if I was going to spend political capital on some mass political movement, there are a lot more important issues out there than whether God is or is not in the Pledge of Allegiance.

[Y0K]

"I want them both removed on the grounds of bad taste."

BAD TASTE? About the only bad thing here is the bull you are passing, as though you think you MIGHT be the next Madlyn Murray O'Hare...

Get a real life

[Servant of the Nine]

BAD TASTE? About the only bad thing here is the bull you are passing, as though you think you MIGHT be the next Madlyn Murray O'Hare...

I think you are confused. Madlyn Murray O'Hare never did anything in good taste in her life. She was as crude as a Fundamentalist Preacher, though not quite as dumb as one.

So9

[Samurai_Jack]

"How about the 200 year tradition of prayer in school. Was that worth changing?"

---

Thats the best point Ive heard so far. (if I may expand a bit)

The thing is that the public school systems had prayers going in the schools and it was commonplace for people to learn to read by reading the bible. The christian tradition of this nation goes back much farther than the current notion of removing all mention of God from the public discourse. It's ironic that the tolerance from the christian tradition is used to denegrate and undermine that tradition.

Im not old enough to have remembered the 'Under God' pledge reference. But as I look back upon the whole picture of history it seems to me that we have forgotten alot of what is important. Is religious tolerance important... YES it is and atheists have to be tolerant too. Thomas Jefferson was famous for going to church in spite of his anti-church positions, and for pronouncing himself a deist because he understood the important role that religion must play for this experimental form of self government to endure.

"The US Constitution is for a moral people and unfit for the governing of any other kind." -- John Adams

Without that religion in play we end up with exactly that which we have today. Nihilistic, Narcissistic, Neverending Violence worshipping and a growing population of anarchistic godless Communists who have not been steeped in the tradition of right and wrong as seen by Americans. Instead these young people were indoctrinated in an acid bath of idealistic world citizenry and unworkable self-destructive Gaia worshipping globalism.

IMO the 'Under God' phrase is seen as one of the underpinnings to the strength of our society. The underpinnings of our society are being incrementally eliminated, School Prayer, Display of the Flag, Abortion on Demand, Public Prayer in General, Forced Societal Destigmatization of destructive behaviors through Civil Rights legislations and 'hate crime' legislations.

"Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness." --George Washington

This trend is not an accident. We are literally destroying ourselves as we hyperextend our liberties into licensiousness. And my opinion is that it is a purposeful progression of ever increasing pressure being placed on the balance of our society. That balance between Liberty and Virtue is constantly being pressed as we increasingly redefine good as bad, and bad as good.

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" --Isaiah 5:20-21

"A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader." — Samuel Adams

You all talk about how the 'Under God' phrase was instituted during the 50s "Red Scare". I tell you that the red scare is not over yet, we overlook this fact at our own peril. The 'Under God' was legislated into the pledge as a message to future generations (THATS YOU AND ME NOW). Dont Forget God.

[Samurai_Jack]

"And if you're against political indoctrination in public schools, be against ALL of it, whether..." *snip*
______________________________

The problem with this 'consistency' is that we strive to be consistent and logical to the point of ruin. That which is fair is not always right. And that which is right is not always fair.

A godless society is an intolerant society, remember that when you look at the Peoples Republic of China. And as was popular to say during WWII... "We can still lose this war!"

[Notwithstanding]

There was no such thing as being for "Seperation" - the prevailing sentiment was that of being against "Establishment".

Those are two very different concepts - and the reality is that federal gov't money and laws supported overt Christian worship - from day one of the first Congress.

Senate chaplains, military chaplains and chapels, the Northwest Ordinance, federally funded Catholic schools for Indians.

Perhaps the founders did not understand their own Constitution?

[Notwithstanding]

There is no inconsistency at all:

Anti-war protesting is purely political and minds can differ as to what wars are "unAmerican" - thus a pubic school should not take and promote a position among students.

But acknowledging a very generic God as the official benefactor and law giver of the USA is both explicit and implicit in the founding documents of the USA.

[Dante3]

bttt

[E Rocc]

There was no such thing as being for "Seperation" - the prevailing sentiment was that of being against "Establishment"

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

-Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.

-James Madison, "Monopolies. Perpetuities. Corporations. Ecclesiastical Endowments,"

-Eric

[E Rocc]

But acknowledging a very generic God as the official benefactor and law giver of the USA is both explicit and implicit in the founding documents of the USA.

No one has yet pointed out where the Constitution states or implies it. It would have been the simplest thing to place this acknowledgement (or even a reference to the Declaration) in the Preamble, and it was not done. Not even as "the heavens", or "providence", or any of the other words Washington used apparently to avoid mentioning God or Jesus.

Considering the precision of the Framers and the known support for Separation among Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, and others, it makes a great deal of sense to presume that the omission was quite intentional.

-Eric

[jwalsh07]

The Lord is mentioned in the Constitution, you are simply unaware of that indisputable fact.

[jwalsh07]

These are the signatures of those signing the Constitution and is part of the document. Every one of them affixed his signature. They each also affixed their signatures to the DOI affirming that rights are granted by the creator and are unalienable as opposed to being granted by the state and fungible.

If you'd like I can supply plenty of quotes from the deists and Christians affirming the free exercise of religion in the public square but what's the point? There signatures are their witness.

---

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.


In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,


G. Washington-Presidt. and deputy from Virginia


New Hampshire: John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman


Massachusetts: Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King


Connecticut: Wm: Saml. Johnson, Roger Sherman


New York: Alexander Hamilton


New Jersey: Wil: Livingston, David Brearly, Wm. Paterson, Jona: Dayton


Pennsylvania: B. Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robt. Morris, Geo. Clymer, Thos. FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouv Morris


Delaware: Geo: Read, Gunning Bedford jun, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jaco: Broom


Maryland: James McHenry, Dan of St Thos. Jenifer, Danl Carroll


Virginia: John Blair--, James Madison Jr.


North Carolina: Wm. Blount, Richd. Dobbs Spaight, Hu Williamson


South Carolina: J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler


Georgia: William Few, Abr Baldwin