Just saw it on CNN, post a link later.
Just saw it on CNN, post a link later.
Link
June 26, 2002 Posted: 3:04 PM EDT (1904 GMT)
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- For the first time ever, a federal appeals court declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional Wednesday because of the words "under God" added by Congress in 1954.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the phrase amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which requires a separation of church and state.
"A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel.
The appeals said that when President Eisenhower signed the legislation inserting "under God" after the words "one nation," he wrote that "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."
The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said students cannot hold religious invocations at graduations and cannot be compelled to recite the pledge. But when the pledge is recited in a classroom, a student who objects is confronted with an "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting," the appeals court said.
"Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge," the court said.
The case was brought by Michael A. Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who objected because his second-grade daughter was required to recite the pledge at the Elk Grove school district. A federal judge dismissed his lawsuit, but the 9th Circuit ordered that the case proceed to trial.
"I'm an American citizen. I don't like my rights infringed upon by my government," he said in an interview. Newdow called the pledge a "religious idea that certain people don't agree with."
The government had argued that the religious content of "one nation under God" is minimal.
But the appeals court said that an atheist or a holder of certain non-Judeo-Christian beliefs could see it as an attempt to "enforce a 'religious orthodoxy' of monotheism."
I agree. they should get rid of under god. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. take it off the coins and bills too. I always hated that part of the pledge, about time the country agreed
iiiiiinteresting...
hmmmmm I use to agree to that and questioned the teachers about it... They told me pretty much that I didn't have to say it if I didn't want to...
I realized later that it is just an expression. It is nothing to get overly upset over because it is a kind of figurehead. just a symbol... it is silly to eliminate it...
I was an athiest back then.. but if you think about it, you can't really eliminate any form of religious expressions from our speech and culture! just like sneezing.. and other things... just as morals are based on religious right and wrongs... that can't be ripped out of the government or else there is no government..
just my 2cents...
Who gives a crap if it says "under god". Don't people have other stuff to worry about?
They should be ripped out. the morals the goverment should use should be basic ones. if you cause harm to someone, you go to jail. if what your doing does not hurt anyone but yourself. if it hurts yourself, ie smoking cigarettes, etc, its your body and shouldnt be controlled. we should not have religion in our laws at allOriginally posted by CluelessSi
just as morals are based on religious right and wrongs... that can't be ripped out of the government or else there is no government..
well, if we don't have anything frivolous to bring up in court, then what good are lawyers?Originally posted by hapoo
Change it to "one nation, under the influence" Whether it be sex, drugs, or rock and roll!
Call me Fleet Admiral §pêêЃrêák™! Go get me some coffee.
CoolSpeed
These fscking courts are out of control. This moron judge has his idiotic head up his stank ass so far he can see daylight from his mouth.
Just one more sign of the complete and total moral decay of America.
you got that right. What's this country coming too?Originally posted by johnnymk
Just one more sign of the complete and total moral decay of America.
I wholeheartedly agree with the court's decision, and I hope that it is held up under appeal.
I am a Christian, and I am also a strong supporter of the separation of church and state. Christianity has always had its fastest growth in an environment where it was not supported by the governing state. Likewise, the most robust states function apart from religion.
This does not mean that there is not a place for moral, christian people in government. It does not mean that the government is trying to abolish all religion.
Rather, it indicates that the pledge of allegiance will no longer push a particular religious belief on everyone who tries to pledge themselves the U.S. flag.
The point of the pledge is to show support of the United States' Flag and, by extension, the nation itself. NOT to God. That's what we have churches for.
People should be able to pledge support of our country, founded upon the secular (anti-religious, even) philosophy of Hobbes and Locke without proclaiming a belief in a "god" who watches over nations. If I want to do that, I can do it in my home or in my church. But it should not be part of official rituals.
This is some mother****ing god damned bull****.
Ok so. I'm not a Christian at all in anyway or even religious so you'd think i'd be offended by it, but no. This decision by the court is repealing part of our CULTURE. This country was founded on these ideals and some little ****er gets offended and wants to go complain? If you don't like it, don't say it! I hope this decision gets repealed.
So does this mean that students will no longer be required to learn what we base our independence on? And if it is illegal to pledge our allegiance to a country using the word "God" then declaring independence under the same term should also be deemed illegal.When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
I'm not drunk but I play one on TV.
if theres anything they should go after its the schools that refuse to teach evolution!
It could happen. No doubt that would please these dips.Originally posted by JPR
So does this mean that students will no longer be required to learn what we base our independence on? And if it is illegal to pledge our allegiance to a country using the word "God" then declaring independence under the same term should also be deemed illegal.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pl...nce/index.html
Circuit Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, who agreed with some elements of the decision but disagreed with the overall opinion, said phrases such as "under God" or "In God We Trust" have "no tendency to establish religion in this country," except in the eyes of those who "most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity."
"My reading of the stelliscript [majority ruling] suggests that upon Newdow's theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings," Fernandez wrote.
"'God Bless America' and 'America the Beautiful' will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third. And currency beware!"
The 9th Circuit is the most overturned appeals court in the country and is considered by legal scholars to be the most liberal. States under its jurisdiction are Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.
No surprise it came out of San Francisco. You know its bad when even liberals like Rep. Richard Gephardt blast this boneheaded move.
evolution is, in itself, just a belief as any other religion--a theory at best. it is deemed by many as the "scientist's religion."
just as christianity, islam, judaism, etc. can be taught in public schools solely with a disclaimer as it being just "one of many" beliefs and not "THE belief" i say let teachers teach evolution if they want...
Originally posted by CornMonkey
evolution is, in itself, just a belief as any other religion--a theory at best. it is deemed by many as the "scientist's religion."
just as christianity, islam, judaism, etc. can be taught in public schools solely with a disclaimer as it being just "one of many" beliefs and not "THE belief" i say let teachers teach evolution if they want...
With one major exception. Its science, based on evidence. Since when did we stop teaching theories in school??
To be honest thats very true...i think they should always include "theory" when teaching evolution....Originally posted by CornMonkey
evolution is, in itself, just a belief as any other religion--a theory at best. it is deemed by many as the "scientist's religion."
just as christianity, islam, judaism, etc. can be taught in public schools solely with a disclaimer as it being just "one of many" beliefs and not "THE belief" i say let teachers teach evolution if they want...
my bad, i should've been more clear in my post..Originally posted by hapoo
With one major exception. Its science, based on evidence. Since when did we stop teaching theories in school??
the big bang theory is often associated with the broader scope of evolution. that's why i say it should be taught with a disclaimer. when i said 'evolution,' i was including the big bang theory. trying to teach the validity of this is as feasible as trying to teach the validity of any other religion...
now there is absolutely no scientific evidence for a 'something from nothing' theory such as the big bang theory. and as far as i'm on the topic, there's no real substantial evidence for the 'homosapiens formed from amoeba' theory as well. there's evidence for micro-evolution, or adaptation, but none for the latter.
Originally posted by whitak24
I wholeheartedly agree with the court's decision, and I hope that it is held up under appeal.
<rest snipped for brevity>
I wish I'd written that. Well said, Whitak.
I wouldn't have taken this issue this far, if it were my case. I think it's a little silly, and nit-picking more than a little. There are about a billion more important issues going on in the world right now.
But I agree with the gist of the decision. This is a pledge of allegiance, not to God, but to the United States of America. Pledging your allegiance to one of them does not automatically assume allegiance to the other.
To simplify, let's alter it a little. Who among us would proudly stand up and recite the pledge if it contained the line "one nation, under Satan"? Or "under Vishnu"? Or "under Buddha?"
Would it just be an expression then? Just a figure of speech? Or would it bother you that in order to recite the pledge, you had to admit the existence and authority of a deity you don't believe in?
The Pledge didn't always contain the "under God" phrase. It was added in 1954. By removing it, we'd merely be reverting to the pledge as it was originally written. No great loss of tradition there. If anything, we'd be restoring tradition.
America is a land of religious freedom, or so we hope. Our loyalty to our country does not hinge upon our belief in God, no matter how generically you choose to define Him. And the millions of non-christians in America should not be forced to ponder whether their loyalty is tarnished or second class because they don't believe in the God of the Pledge.
Belief in God is an intensely personal thing, and it may be a driving force behind one's loyalty to the United States. But merely because our loyalty is rooted in Christianity does not mean we should expect or demand that the loyalty of others have the same foundation.
And I found that hope and a lucky card
were all I had to walk with me...
here here... i just wish there were more christians like jase and whitak i mean...i'm square dab in the bible belt...and this religious fervor seems to invade ...everything...
The two are entirely seperate theories, and don't depend on each other. It's entirely possible that one of them is true, and the other is false. Proving or disproving one of them does not prove or disprove the other.Originally posted by CornMonkey
the big bang theory is often associated with the broader scope of evolution. that's why i say it should be taught with a disclaimer. when i said 'evolution,' i was including the big bang theory.
I've never been in a class where they weren't clearly labeled as theories. It's easy to see how they've changed to fit new data over time, so they obviously can't yet be classified as "laws" or "facts".
And I found that hope and a lucky card
were all I had to walk with me...
Originally posted by jase71
To simplify, let's alter it a little. Who among us would proudly stand up and recite the pledge if it contained the line "one nation, under Satan"? Or "under Vishnu"? Or "under Buddha?"
god Pronunciation Key (gd)
n.
God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
A very handsome man.
A powerful ruler or despot.
not to nitpick myself but the word "GOD" in the english language is NOT a Christian thing so there a HUGE difference between "under god" and "under Buddha".
And are all religions based on a single "god"? Or are some based on many gods, or even NO gods?Originally posted by hapoo
not to nitpick myself but the word "GOD" in the english language is NOT a Christian thing so there a HUGE difference between "under god" and "under Buddha".
Merely using the word "god" narrows the scope, and eliminates some religions from inclusion.
Add to this that "god" is usually capitalized to "God", and the implication is obviously that the Judeo-Christian god is the one being referred to. Add to this Eisenhower's quote after the addition of the phrase, and the meaning of "God" is perfectly clear. "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."
It's not about being Christian or non-Christian. It's about being inclusive or exclusive. By using the term at all, we exclude any religion that does not fall under the defintion of monotheism.
Last edited by jase71; 06-26-2002 at 05:49 PM.
And I found that hope and a lucky card
were all I had to walk with me...
I always skip that part when I say it...Originally posted by NuTs62
Link
June 26, 2002 Posted: 3:04 PM EDT (1904 GMT)
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- For the first time ever, a federal appeals court declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional Wednesday because of the words "under God" added by Congress in 1954.
it is about time this is happening
Some dummies skip the whole Pledge of Allegiance.
He is probably a COMMIE.Originally posted by sbp
These fscking courts are out of control. This moron judge has his idiotic head up his stank ass so far he can see daylight from his mouth.
It is not enough to merely touch the face of god; you also must open your eyes so that you may see your palm.
I like the way you think. You forgot stinking before Commie though.Originally posted by Ladogaboy
He is probably a COMMIE.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
~Reality is an illusion~ 
Bookmarks