In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Court rules Pledge of Allegiance 'unconstitutional
Bullzeye
Member Posts: 3,560
SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag cannot be recited in public schools because the phrase "under God" endorses religion.
In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that reciting the phrase was a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state and amounted to government endorsing religion.
If it stands, the ruling means schoolchildren -- at least in the nine Western states covered by the court -- cannot recite the pledge, according to The Associated Press.
Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
"The recitation that ours is a nation 'under God' is not a mere acknowledgement that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase 'one nation under God' in the context of the pledge is normative," the court said in its decision.
"To recite the pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 -- monotheism."
The phrase was added in 1954 through legislation signed by President Eisenhower. The appeals court noted that Eisenhower wrote then 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."
Although no child is forced to say the pledge, the judges said any child whose personal or religious beliefs prevented him from reciting the pledge was left with the "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting."
The case had been filed against the United States, the U.S. Congress, California, and two school districts and its officials by Andrew Newdow, an atheist whose daughter attends public school in California.
The government said that the phrase "under God" had minimal religious content.
But the appeals court said that teachers having classrooms reciting the pledge did not pass the coercion test. The court also 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."
The three-judge panel was not unanimous in the ruling.
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 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. '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!" wrote Fernandez.
The 9th Circuit is the most liberal and the most overturned appeals court in the country.
In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that reciting the phrase was a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state and amounted to government endorsing religion.
If it stands, the ruling means schoolchildren -- at least in the nine Western states covered by the court -- cannot recite the pledge, according to The Associated Press.
Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
"The recitation that ours is a nation 'under God' is not a mere acknowledgement that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase 'one nation under God' in the context of the pledge is normative," the court said in its decision.
"To recite the pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 -- monotheism."
The phrase was added in 1954 through legislation signed by President Eisenhower. The appeals court noted that Eisenhower wrote then 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."
Although no child is forced to say the pledge, the judges said any child whose personal or religious beliefs prevented him from reciting the pledge was left with the "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting."
The case had been filed against the United States, the U.S. Congress, California, and two school districts and its officials by Andrew Newdow, an atheist whose daughter attends public school in California.
The government said that the phrase "under God" had minimal religious content.
But the appeals court said that teachers having classrooms reciting the pledge did not pass the coercion test. The court also 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."
The three-judge panel was not unanimous in the ruling.
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 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. '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!" wrote Fernandez.
The 9th Circuit is the most liberal and the most overturned appeals court in the country.
Comments
The patriots of this country will not stand for this kind of filth.
I suggest immediate action. Cant say just what, but it has to be immediate and unequivocable.
Pack slow, fall stable, pull high, hit dead center.
muley
**I love the smell of Hoppes #9 in the morning**
The flag is the symbol of our national unity, our national endeavor, our national aspiration.
The flag tells of the struggle for independence, of union preserved, of liberty and union one and inseparable, of the sacrifices
of brave men and women to whom the ideals and honor of this nation have been dearer than life.
It means America first; it means an undivided allegiance.
It means America united, strong and efficient, equal to her tasks.
It means that you cannot be saved by the valor and devotion of your ancestors, that to each generation comes its patriotic duty;
and that upon your willingness to sacrifice and endure as those before you have sacrificed and endured rests the national
hope.
It speaks of equal rights, of the inspiration of free institutions exemplified and vindicated, of liberty under law intelligently
conceived and impartially administrated. There is not a thread in it but scorns self-indulgence, weakness, and rapacity.
It is eloquent of our community interests, outweighing all divergencies of opinion, and of our common destiny.
by Charles Evans Hughes
I Refuse to be a VictimGrumpy old man
Why work? The goverment takes your money and gives it to people who don't!!!
Personally, I am totally opposed to "the pledge", not on the God issue, but because I do not think we as american citizens should ever pledge allegiance to anything, be it a flag, or the government.
I also think the founders would be rolling in there graves if they knew that we were pledging allegiance to our government,
that the pledge claims we are "One nation"
that we are "indivisible".
Furthermore, I have a hard time reciting something that was written by a known Socialist(Bellamy, I beleive is the name of the author of the pledge)he was a known socialist.
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison
First off, I just want to say that I'm NOT in favor of flag burning.
BUT, if you can't burn the flag, then we might as well put up that red flag with the hammer and syckle......cuz that is what we'll have become.
Of course, flag burners SHOULDN'T be given police protection.
Freedom of speech is just that.....freedom. Doesn't mean we have to like it.
Merc
NO! You may not have my guns! Now go crawl back into your hole!
****************************************
"Tolerating things you may not necessarily like is part of being free" - Larry Flynt
Lord Lowrider the LoquaciousMember:Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets She was only a fisherman's daughter,But when she saw my rod she reeled.
They are very much tearing the country apart from the inside. what i dont get is that with as much realestate as there is in the rest of the world...why the hell do they decide to stay here if they hate it so much.
to what this country stands for. To quote Ernie Pyle (the greatest war correspondent in WW 2) "I never saw a athiest in a foxhole".
Strange how fear will change thinking. Guess I will burn my currency
that all says "in God we trust". Wouldnt you.??
~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
Edited by - will270win on 06/26/2002 19:13:27
This isn't the USA I grew up in.
C-
___________________________
God, Guts, and Guns: keeping America Strong for 200 years.
(sig about Clinton's talk show changed, though I thought it was pretty creative without overt vulgarity)
**I love the smell of Hoppes #9 in the morning**
Just another run by the atheists, nothing more.
So I must agree with bullz on this. Let's go out and do something, immediate and unequivocable(sic). Say what ??????
Clouder..
Beware lest in your anxiety to avoid war you obtain a master. -Demosthenes
Beware lest in your anxiety to avoid war you obtain a master. -Demosthenes
Definitely BUSH Is "MABUS" prepare yourselves to fight the horned one, or have a stockpile of petroleum jelly for the Idol butt-kissing.
Well just sit nicely in your TV room and see how the ARMY of GOD deals
with this in a few days ... Let me see ..The "sea" of California may be an option "Get out of there wile you can" Let the minions of Islam
purify the citys with the "Iron thunderbolt", some f6 to f8 tornados
and 8.8 earthquakes ,just watch the sky turn red and the hare in the moon head down ....Then "the wind" will come....
Definitely Indian Elders have the spirit of GOD with them !!!...
JD (White Eagle)
Good...? , Bad...? Who cares ? as long I am the one with the the gun.....
**I love the smell of Hoppes #9 in the morning**
Read the account of Noah. Things today are just like they were in his day. The flood came and all those who mocked him for making the first boat, found themselves beating on the door trying to get it. Too late. I am far far less patient than the Lord I serve. Be thankful that he is patient, longsuffering, and a gracious God. Be ye not troubled by the things of this world.
Beware lest in your anxiety to avoid war you obtain a master. -Demosthenes
The ruling against including "under god" in the pledge seems to be the correct one. Unfortunately, it will probably be reversed by the next-higher court, and the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the appeal. It would be better if the pledge just had "...one nation, indivisible..." since that was the original text. The point at issue appears to be whether a government institution can impose a religious endorsement on its students without concern for the non-religious members of the community. It's the same as the so-called invocation that public schools used to have before sporting events-- a distinctly Christian and intolerant practice. Why don't you all "pray to God" that the decision gets reversed. Just "have faith" and it will all be all right...
IMADORK- Actually, the ruling against including "underGOD" was a bad ruling-it is unconstitutional.
The federal government is prohibited by the constitution from establishing religion, AND PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. If a state decides that they want the pledge of allegiance recited, or a prayer to be conducted before the start of every school day, constitutionally they have a right to do so, and the government can not interfere with the states religious policies. "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The court ruling that "God" cannot be said in a school is prohibiting the exercise of religion.
As far as your opinion that the pledge should be recited in its original version, with the word "GOD omitted- I am sure the author of the pledge would be happy with that. He(the author) was a socialist, and socialists agree with you, that God should not be uttered.
The point at issue IS NOT Whether a GOVERNMENT institution can impose a religious endorsement on students without concern for non religious members of the community-the point at issue is that the FEDERAL government is prohibited from establishing religion-AND IS PROHIBITED FROM NOT ALLOWING THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. Be it on an individual or state level. The constitution specifally states that the federal government has to stay out of the business of religion-prohibiting the utterance of GOD in the classroom is sticking their noses where it does not belong, and is a gross violation of the constitution.
"seperation of church and state" is not a constitutional principle. It is a concept created by the courts to ignore certain parts of the first amendment. Since "seperation of church and state" ignores parts of the first amendment, and violates said parts, it is unconstitutional.
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison
But I refuse to allow these Liberals to carve up everything the nation as a whole holds sacred.
This is only the beginning. If this holds, the resulting fallout will be catastrophic, and much farther reaching than just religion.
What's next? "...all men are created equal." being changed to "...all men, women, and transgendered individuals"?
You think I'm exaggerating? THINK ABOUT IT.
Beware lest in your anxiety to avoid war you obtain a master. -Demosthenes
"What we have here... is Failure to Communicate"
Although schools are run by the states, most of the funding comes from the federal government, so just as the feds stuck their noses in when schools tried to remain segregated they are jumping in on this one as well. Federal money has changed the balance of power between states and the federal government.
Boywonder- So are you saying, that because the federal government has overstepped its constitutional boundaries with respect to getting into the business of education, that now they are justified in ignoring the constitution all together? If the constitution gets in the way of all the things the government wants to do, they can just ignore the constitution, 'cause they have done so in the past.
ps. forced busing is unconstitutional.
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison
Beware lest in your anxiety to avoid war you obtain a master. -Demosthenes
Naaaah....
Edited by - Bullzeye on 06/26/2002 22:04:37
I think Christianity is pretty well established, it really doesn't need much federal protection at this point.
Will we ever get over the false notion that the Federal government exists to ofeer "federal protection" of our rights.
Constitutionally, the Federal government is supposed to stay out of the rights business all together. It does not grant us rights.
And what the "federal government is the great protector" folk fail to realize, is that governments do not give us rights-they take rights away.
I think we can all agree that we are supposed to have freedom of religion in this country. How does prohibition of the exercise of religion by the Federal government, protect the "free exercise" of religion? Explain how it is that when the government steps in and tells a school district that they cannot utter "GOD" in the classroom, results in the Federal government "protecting" our religious freedoms?
The federal government is not supposed to protect, or prohibit our religious freedoms-it is supposed to stay out of religion all together.
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison
Requirement for federal "grants" to law Schools: (GOD is dead and don't teach common law ......)
Now sinse 911 so as not to hurt "Muslim reasoning" US must "erase" the Chistian GOD from representing goverment in any way .....
As ADVICED by top CIA psicologist as to "tone down" fundamentalist hate against US .....
Yawe lost to Mohamed .....
AWWW!!! how I miss the crusades....
***************************************************************
OUR Christian soldiers... marching out to war ....
No longer can sing this song.... so as to GOD protect them all....
FOR This will becomeeee...... anty-constitutionallllllll.......
***************************************************************
AWWW!? all the croses at memorial burial grownds are Insconstitutional too!!??????
This sure is an unholy mess can of worms.......
Tomorrow headlines... (Future)CNN LIVE!
Christian Terrorist enters white house
shouts Christ is great ! and blows himself UP!
Christians want independent state for themselves !White House refuses
curfew is declared anyone wearing a cross or cruxifix will be arrested
as a security measure..
Candles are outlawed as law now state them as weapons of mass destruction "trigers" for the terrorist main weapon (Church-bomb)..
A man was arrested for towing a cathedral in front of the white house
and opening a propane cylinder inside it ,Thank God !! ,,,Pause!
Video interrupt in the signal (--audio remains ...)Cut by sharp!
Bang!Bang! Bang ! thund! ... Video restarts and a new anouncer apears
Pause ! Continuing the news.... (Luckily the wind blew out the candle and the church-bomb did not detonate) >>>>>,,,....
JD
Good...? , Bad...? Who cares ? as long I am the one with the the gun.....
Beware lest in your anxiety to avoid war you obtain a master. -Demosthenes
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison
Boywonder, you said quote: I just feel for the one little budist girl. If she doesn't say 'god', how will the other kids treat her? You know how kids are. Who needs to be protected, the one or two kids who aren't Christians, or the 30 that are? but what does either Buddhism or Christianity have to do with the topic? All religions (but one) recognize a God by one name or another.
What we see here is one religion mis-using the constitution to abuse all the others. This is not a case of separation of church and state but a case of the state actively taking the side of one religion against all the rest.
Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis
Edited by - shootist3006 on 06/27/2002 02:06:05
Respect those who protect us now just as you would those who died for us in the past.
He is forcing his opinion on 98% of the population without their consent... and forcing his daughter to accept his way of thinking..
I was taught in school, (Canadian, yes we learn American history)
that majority rules, so what happened here?..
Even growing up, those words had an impact and still do.. I may have changed my beliefs in God and the supreme being, but the word God covers a lot of ground.. According to the dictionary, God means
"creator, sustainer, ruler of life and the universe" so depending on your own beliefs it could be anything from God the father to a bloody tree .. (little far fetched, but the point is there)
We all have things that offend us, but do we change them? No we live with it, just the same as there are things about me that offend others, they do not force me to change.. nor I them..
One woman's opinion
***There's a difference between living and living well!***
Most of this thread is drivel but you made a point that I want to take you up on. The majority does in fact rule but it is the responsiblity of that majority to protect the minority, even if it's 98 to 2 as you stated.
Clouder..
Lord Lowrider the LoquaciousMember:Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets She was only a fisherman's daughter,But when she saw my rod she reeled.