Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional

by Dogpatch 13 Replies latest jw friends

  • Dogpatch
    Dogpatch

    Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional
    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."

    Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

  • dubla
  • Amazing
    Amazing

    When we say the Pledge, we are pledging to a Flag, a piece of cloth with sybolic design. We are not pledging to the Nation or the Constitution. The whole pledge concept is nonsense anyway, even though I am conservative. I say that we need to make it totally politically and culturally neutral:

    NEW POLITICALLY CORRECT PLEDGE:

    "I pledge allegiance to something, whatever it is that I believe or do not believe in, of the United States of America or whatever we might call ourselves from time to time, and to the Republic or Democracy, or Communist or Socialistic or whatever kind of State we might have from time to time, for which it might stand, whatever that is; One Nation, or whatever type of corporate or social entity we may choose to have from time to time in accordance with whatever collective consensus we may or may not have in place, under something, be it a god or no god, whomever she/he/it might be or not be, but some kind of force or higher power, however we individually interpret that high power; indivisible or divisible however we choose to define unity or division, with liberty, or some variation thereof, in accordance with our mutual consent; and justice, however that my be defined to mean to each person or by majority vote, for all, whatever "all" might mean, i.e. "all people" in this legal entity, or "all people who pass through as visitors," and/or "animals" and "plants" however we determine sentient species."
    Amen!!!

    Edited by - Amazing on 26 June 2002 19:2:47

  • DakotaRed
    DakotaRed

    I am curious to see just where this will lead. Since their claim as to unconstitutionality of it was based on the words, "in God we trust" in it, does that make all of our currency also invalid now, as it contains the same words?

    I belong to a veterans group and the guys I know there aren't too happy over this.

    Lew W.

  • plmkrzy
    plmkrzy

    NEW POLITICALLY CORRECT PLEDGE:

    "I pledge allegiance to something, whatever it is that I believe or do not believe in, of the United States of America or whatever we might call ourselves from time to time, and to the Republic or Democracy, or Communist or Socialistic or whatever kind of State we might have from time to time, for which it might stand, whatever that is; One Nation, or whatever type of corporate or social entity we may choose to have from time to time in accordance with whatever collective consensus we may or may not have in place, under something, be it a god or no god, whomever she/he/it might be or not be, but some kind of force or higher power, however we individually interpret that high power; indivisible or divisible however we choose to define unity or division, with liberty, or some variation thereof, in accordance with our mutual consent; and justice, however that my be defined to mean to each person or by majority vote, for all, whatever "all" might mean, i.e. "all people" in this legal entity, or "all people who pass through as visitors," and/or "animals" and "plants" however we determine sentient species."
    Amen!!!

    LMAO@Amazing. HAhahahaa.

    To bad they pulled the plug on "Politically Incorrect" I would love to send this to Bill Mehar (or how ever U spell his name)

  • DJ
    DJ

    Pledge of Allegiance

    Amazing, that was hysterical, unfortunately true though.

    I just love the way this decision by the GOVERNMENT allies the ATHEISTS with the WITNESSES!!!!!!! It's a trinity of sorts.........

    DJ

  • DanTheMan
    DanTheMan

    Oh, I hate to be within ten miles of Rush Limbaugh over this one. He'd better start chewing some serious aspirin.

    Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's heads are surely spinning a la the Excorcist right about now.

    Fodder for more Tim McVeigh's to come out of the woodwork.

    Maybe these are the last days.

  • tdogg
    tdogg

    Its about damn time.

    BTW- they cannot and did not rule the pledge unconstitutional. It is ruled unconstitutional to use the pledge in state sponsored functions (schools, government functions). It is already mandated by law that there be a separation in church and state and this is only a logical extention of that.

  • JanH
  • plmkrzy
    plmkrzy
    BTW- they cannot and did not rule the pledge unconstitutional

    Actually they ruled that God is unconstitutional.plum

    Edited by - plmkrzy on 27 June 2002 5:27:25

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit