Pledge of Allegiance declared unconstitutional

Pledge Declared Unconstitutional
Wed Jun 26, 2:36 PM ET
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and cannot be recited in schools.


The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ( news - web sites) overturned a 1954 act of Congress inserting the phrase "under God" after the words "one nation" in the pledge. The court said the phrase violates the so-called Establishment Clause in the Constitution that 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 court, in the nation's first ruling of its kind, said that when President Eisenhower signed the 1954 legislation, 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 ( news - web sites) 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.

References to God in anything to do with the Government shouldn't be there in the first place. It's a little sad to see it took almost 50 years to at least strike that down.

Thumbs up to freedom of religion or lack of religion.

------------------
http://www.toolcity.net/~burt/images/pimp3a.jpg
My anti-drug is non-consensual sex with minors.
AIM: Mista Saki

Well, we've almost certainly got a Supreme Court decision coming up--let's hope they have the same outlook.

Next target: our money.

Originally posted by TheHappiestBoyInTheWorld:

Next target: our money.

Indeed. There's been some interesting commentary about it on MSNBC.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

based in San Francisco, the 9th circuit court of appeals is the biggest front for the communist party this country has. this ruling and their opinion proves it.

prime candidates for the Religious Left these freaks. yup.

thumbs down to the constitution in general

Originally posted by scouse_dave:
thumbs down to the constitution in general

http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/icons/icon5.gif
care to enlighten us on your reasoning?


[This message has been edited by Nate the Grate (edited 06-26-2002).]

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
America was founded on the ideal of people being free to hold their own beliefs, whatever they were. It was not founded under any god.

Shut up you vegan godless communist.

originally bumbled by the brown-shirt Judge Alfred T. Goodwin:

"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,"

This educated idiot can't properly decipher the word identical. God is not Jesus, Vishnu, Zeus, etc. For him to stretch the definition of 'identical' under an Establishment Clause premise is further proof he's a frustrated Marxist.

Originally posted by Nate the Grate:
care to enlighten us on your reasoning?

no problem, kind sir

it's used as the counter-argument to so many proposals that would potentially improve your country. "no - because it says in the constitution blah blah blah...". people aren't interested about whether it's a good idea or not, they'd rather adhere to a flawed and outdated 200-odd-year old document

each idea should be taken on its individual merits, that's my argument

[This message has been edited by scouse_dave (edited 06-26-2002).]

Originally posted by sickbadthing:
Shut up you vegan godless communist.

My inner child says fuck you!

Originally posted by **********:
That's crap... our nation was founded under God, and there is freedom of religion in the U.S. but one should still recognize the people who founded the nation. More than anything it should be a respect to our nation's past.

it had nothing to do with the founding of the country. eisenhower added that line in the 50's because of his own beliefs, not to pay homage to history

Originally posted by scouse_dave:
no problem, kind sir

im still bitter about the revolutionary war

[This message has been edited by scouse_dave (edited 06-26-2002).]

i would have to agree that religion shouldn't be enforced...but isn't "God" a pretty broad term? It doesn't say anywhere about a specific religion

and if you are Atheist....why does using the word god even matter if there is no higher power? can't you just laugh it off?

Originally posted by bittertrance:
and if you are Atheist....why does using the word god even matter if there is no higher power? can't you just laugh it off?

Well, to make an extreme example, if you don't believe in an Aryan master race does that mean you can laugh off the ideology of Nazi Germany? If people are using personal beliefs to control aspects of people's lives, it should be cause for questioning.

Originally posted by scouse_dave:
no problem, kind sir

it's used as the counter-argument to so many proposals that would potentially improve your country. "no - because it says in the constitution blah blah blah...". people aren't interested about whether it's a good idea or not, they'd rather adhere to a flawed and outdated 200-odd-year old document

each idea should be taken on its individual merits, that's my argument.

But we have that... they're called amendments? I don't think there's anything wrong with the constitution. It's the blatant disregard for it. If nobody cares, the government tries to get away with whatever they can. There are many laws that are anti-constitutional but because of general consensus of a wide majority of morons who live in this country, politicians get away with passing laws that are oppressive.

If this gets the pledge of allegiance out of schools, then I hope they take the "In God We Trust" off of the fucking coins as well.

i wonder why they just can't make the kids recite the original form of pledge of allegiance that francis bellamy wrote.

------------------
"i've heard of unisex, but i've never had it."-monty python.

Originally posted by bittertrance:
i would have to agree that religion shouldn't be enforced...but isn't "God" a pretty broad term? It doesn't say anywhere about a specific religion

By putting 'under god' in the Pledge, you are alienating people with polytheistic belief system, atheists and agnostics, and they make up a pretty big piece of the american pie.

The pledge was written by a priest sometime in the 1800s, a priest who knew it would be against the spirit of the constitution to make any mention of god in the pledge.

Originally posted by sickbadthing:
But we have that... they're called amendments? I don't think there's anything wrong with the constitution. It's the blatant disregard for it. If nobody cares, the government tries to get away with whatever they can. There are many laws that are anti-constitutional but because of general consensus of a wide majority of morons who live in this country, politicians get away with passing laws that are oppressive.

Do you have any fucking clue what it takes to amend the Constitution? It's almost impossible, and that's why there hasn't been one for about 30 years.

The Constitution is shit and needs to be burned. Why can't you get over the fact that it was written by old men, most of whom had black slaves, and treated women AS slaves. Who gives a fuck if no Constitution allows more legislation? This country runs better under more government. Ever heard of the New Deal or the Great Society? This is when our nation was most prosperous. Read a history book.

Originally posted by sickbadthing:
Ha ha. What revisionist history book have you been reading?

Originally posted by Delta:
it had nothing to do with the founding of the country. eisenhower added that line in the 50's because of his own beliefs, not to pay homage to history

From the Declaration of Independence:

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.

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
If people are using personal beliefs to control aspects of people's lives, it should be cause for questioning.

pardon my confustion...are you specifically referring to the constitution here? I personally don't see how the words "under God" are used to control aspects of personal lives...but maybe I misunderstood you.

Originally posted by Can You Hear Me Now?Good!:
Do you have any fucking clue what it takes to amend the Constitution? It's almost impossible, and that's why there hasn't been one for about 30 years.

The constitution was last amended about 10 years ago.

Do you even know why there is a constitution? It's the document by which everything in the government operates. Everything. If the constitution was really easy to modify, it wouldn't be stable. It's supposed to be an adamantly stable document. Only drastic changes that are highly demanded are made to it.

Have you ever read the constitution? It's quite obvious that you haven't. Take a glance over it and see how very wrong you are.

Originally posted by Can You Hear Me Now?Good!:
Do you have any fucking clue what it takes to amend the Constitution? It's almost impossible, and that's why there hasn't been one for about 30 years.

The Constitution is shit and needs to be burned. Why can't you get over the fact that it was written by old men, most of whom had black slaves, and treated women AS slaves. Who gives a fuck if no Constitution allows more legislation? This country runs better under more government. Ever heard of the New Deal or the Great Society? This is when our nation was most prosperous. Read a history book.

Liberal pantywaist. Go get a handjob from Mao's corpse.

Originally posted by scouse_dave:
im still bitter about the revolutionary war

haha, whatever...

Originally posted by Junebug:
pardon my confustion...are you specifically referring to the constitution here? I personally don't see how the words "under God" are used to control aspects of personal lives...but maybe I misunderstood you.

Because the phrase is symbolic of how the separation of church and state (which is an important concept) is not maintained. People in positions of power are able to pursue their own religious agendas, which impacts on the lives of the population. Witness the diversions of public funds into programs such as the promotion of christianity, and lobbying against established abortion rights. You get the idea

Originally posted by Can You Hear Me Now?Good!:
The Constitution is shit and needs to be burned.

new sig?

Originally posted by ******:
The constitution was last amended about 10 years ago.

Do you even know why there is a constitution? It's the document by which everything in the government operates. Everything. If the constitution was really easy to modify, it wouldn't be stable. It's supposed to be an adamantly stable document. Only drastic changes that are highly demanded are made to it.

Have you ever read the constitution? It's quite obvious that you haven't. Take a glance over it and see how very wrong you are.

The amendment that was ratified ten years ago was originally passed in 1789 moron. It's been 30 years since an amendement passed that was started in the last 50 years. If it takes 200 years just to ratify an amendment, then as I said, it's almost impossible to do.

The reason why the Constitution is so worthless is because it is such a GENERAL document. Each article can be interpreted in so many ways. Why even have a document like that when Congress and the Supreme Court are going to make their own rules and interpretations anyway?

If anything, the Constitution creates instability because you have all these groups protesting each other about what the Old White Men actually meant when they wrote that shit.

Originally posted by sickbadthing:

Liberal pantywaist. Go get a handjob from Mao's corpse.

I consider myself to be a centrist. Even a centrist can see that more government, when accepted by the masses, creates prosperity. Just take a look at FDR's administration. You'll figure it out.

Originally posted by Can You Hear Me Now?Good!:
Even a centrist can see that more government, when accepted by the masses, creates prosperity. Just take a look at FDR's administration. You'll figure it out.

Sounds pretty liberal to me, dickweed.

Originally posted by 17 Seconds:
post quoting the constitution

(from the CNN article, verbatim)
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."

it doesnt matter if the word 'God' showed up in some political document before 1954, the appearence of 'God' in the pledge of allegiance actually was based on eisenhower's personal beliefs, and not on the beliefs of jefferson or any of the other founding fathers