-- A federal appeals court in San Francisco has declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.
Discussion


PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Discuss This Ruling



The court finds that it's an endorsement of religion -- and cannot be recited in schools.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 1954 act of Congress that inserted the phrase "under God" after the words "one nation" in the pledge.


The court says the phrase violates the separation of church and state.

A judge wrote that a statement that we are one nation "under God" is no different than saying we are a nation "under Jesus" or "under Vishnu" -- or a nation "under no God."

He says none of these statements can be neutral with respect to religion.

 

The suit was filed by an atheist, and he was just on TV saying how this is the first major step in atheism taking over the country. He says that American patriots are at fault for all the wars going on in the world, so you know where this mutt is coming from.

 

Did you actually see him say "This is the first step to Atheism taking over the country"

 

This is so so wrong. How soon before the Declaration of Independence is rewritten to strike the references to God from it?

 

Sorry, I agree with the ruling. We have a constutionally mandated separation of Church and State. Forcing students to participate in the pledge allegiance in a state-run, state-funded school is not right.

 

I would like to read in the constitution the phrase "separation of church and state" or words to that effect. Can you tell me where it is in the constitution?

Winford

 

Since I am probably the oldest person arround these parts, I will give my perspective.

I grew up in the early thirties, and fourties.

I remember WWII starting and ending. My dad was in the war.

The people who fought WWII are now called "The greatest generation".

I went, soon after, to the Korean war.

I was a witness to so much greatness in America.

But, guess what.

All of that time up till, I think, 1957, the pledge did not have the words "under god".

It was congress as usual wanting to appear "religious" so they could get re elected, so they all went along with adding those two words to our pledge.

It just seems to me from my view point in time, that things have been getting much worse since then.

Adding two words to an already great pledge does not and will not ever make things better.

Why was America so great back then, and the pledge did not contain those two words?

If those two words had never ever been added and up till today the pledge remained true to the original version, there would be no great demand to add those two words today.

Then there would be no big fuss. Everything would have remaind as American as apple pie.

 

>It was congress as usual wanting to appear "religious" so
>they could get re elected, so they all went along with
>adding those two words to our pledge.


Very true. The Constitution clearly states "that Congress shall make NO law". That's what they did. It got repealled.

I agree with the decision from a Constitutional standpoint.

 

We do not have a constitutionally mandated seperation of church and state. Also, read up on the writings of our founding fathers... the whole point about "no laws" what so we don't have "Church of England" scenario over here. Saying that the words "under God" has anything to do with the state of our nation is an extreme stretch.

Why I am not surprised that this ruling came from the left coast?

 

This is all ridiculous whats next God Bless America being banned?






Wiz

An Equal Opportunity Truck Lover!

http://www.clubfte.com/users/thewiz427/index.html

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 26-Jun-02 AT 07:32 PM (EST)]Like it or not (and I happen to like it) we are, for the most part, a nation founded and sustained on Judeo-Christian ethics and principles.
Ken is correct, there is NO mention of seperation between church and state in our Constitution. Always remember what our ancestors were fleeing (Church of England (official "State" church) was one of many things.). It is my belief our Supreme Court made a mistake with its ruling re: seperation of church and state. But, that is only my belief, and I'm sure others will disagree.
At any rate, the Constitution says "Congress shall make no LAW regarding the establishment of a religion". I do not view the Pledge of Allegiance as a "law". In addition, I do not doubt, although I do not know it as a fact, that the phrase "under God" was inserted for "political" reasons. Regardless of the motivation, it is there now.
My general opinion: the presence, or lack thereof, of phrases and references to God, whether it be in the Pledge, on our money, or wherever, is not an "endorsement of a religion". Rather it is a GENERAL reflection of who we are as a people. References to God do not make us a "holy" nation, nor do they necessarily make us a more "moral" nation (as correctly and accurately demonstrated by the senior member in a preceeding post). They merely reflect the GENERAL predominance of thought prevailing in our country. Times change, and so do ideals. Perhaps that is what we are seeing. I hope not.
Bottom line, It is my STRONG belief that ALL laws are a reflection of somebody's (or bodies') "religious belief" - or said another way; somebody's morals. It can be no other way, at least as far as I can see. So, whose morals will it be? It's got to be somebody's !?!?!?

Thanks for you indulgence,
Brian A

 

Ken - I sure do not want to have a argument about separation of church and state.

My only comment was about the pledge of alegience for hundreds of years untill 1954, did not have the two words "under God".

I grew up learning the pledge before it was altered from its original.

 

>We do not have a constitutionally mandated seperation of
>church and state.

Yep, that was legislated from the bench by the same institution that came up with this cockamamie idea.

>Also, read up on the writings of our
>founding fathers... the whole point about "no laws" what so
>we don't have "Church of England" scenario over here.
>Saying that the words "under God" has anything to do
>with the state of our nation is an extreme stretch.
>

I agree. It is a good thing and helps prevent religious persecution in this country. However too much of a good thing. When did the idea of freedom OF relgion turn into freedom FROM religion.

>Why I am not surprised that this ruling came from the left
>coast?

Thanks go out to the land of fruits and nuts!! Lived there 7 years and don't want to ever go back. (And I'm SURE they don't miss me EITHER).:7

 

Ok so iif they do this to every thing that has god on it. So Do we have to trade all our money in says in GOD we Trust. and as far as the Pledge goes its not mandatory in my school. They just ask us to be quite and don't do anything like give the flag the bird.

 

Winford: Yes I can tell you: The First Ammendmentof the Constitution of the United States reads: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievences."

Now what we have here is an interpretation of the First Ammendment, as we sometimes have liberal interpretations of the Second Ammendment.

What I see is what is written. But the question is: did the Congress under the Eisenhower adminstration violate the First ammendment when it, and Congress included, "God" by way of "law" to be included in the Pledge.?

This is the crux of the argument: Does this "law" sanction any one, or multiple religions, by the "Congress" when they incorporated this law into the Pledge?

Who is God? It means many things to many people. This is a good argument for ambiguity, therefore no sanction of the United States with regard to religion.

On the otherhand, The Bill of Rights, "void where prohibited by law".
If this holds true, can we not apply this to the Second, Fourth, and even the 16th Ammendment.? Hell let's just void the whole Bill of Rights by law! Who would agree agree with this.? F-3 Brien