[typoon]

Sep 14 3:19 PM US/Eastern

By DAVID KRAVETS
Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO

A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.

Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts in Sacramento County, where the plaintiffs' children attend.

The order would not extend beyond those districts unless it is affirmed by a higher court, in which case it would apply to nine western states.

The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools, at a time when the makeup of the Supreme Court is in flux.

Wednesday's ruling comes as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts faces day three of his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice.
In July, Sandra Day O'Connor announced her plans to retire when a successor is confirmed.

The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.

"It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made," said fund attorney Jared Leland.

The decisions by Karlton and the 9th Circuit conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.

A three-judge panel of that circuit ruled that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious affirmation similar to a prayer.

"Undoubtedly, the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words `under God' contain no religious significance," Judge Karen Williams wrote for the 4th Circuit. "The inclusion of those two words, however, does not alter the nature of the pledge as a patriotic activity."

Newdow, reached at his home, was not immediately prepared to comment.

Karlton, appointed to the Sacramento bench in 1979 by President Carter, wrote that the case concerned "the ongoing struggle as to the role of religion in the civil life of this nation" and added that his opinion "will satisfy no one involved in that debate."

Karlton dismissed claims that the 1954 Congressional legislation inserting the words "under God" was unconstitutional. If his ruling stands, he reasoned that the school children and their parents in the case would not be harmed by the phrase because they would no longer have to recite it at school.

Terence Cassidy, a lawyer representing the school districts, said he was reviewing the opinion and was not immediately prepared to comment.

This is Crazy. This has been said many many times as far as I can remember. no one has had a problem with it. Gotta love the Judges these days.

[RAILhead]

I can't wait for them to "decide" that the flag, in and of itself, is also unconstitutional because it also impedes on individual rights.

Maury

[Big Mac]

The country has embarked on this path of hyper-politically correct jurisprudence; thus, decisions such as this one are only taking the law to its next logical iterations.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

I can't wait for them to "decide" that the flag, in and of itself, is also unconstitutional because it also impedes on individual rights.

Maury

Does the flag include religious references?

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Does the flag include religious references?

Since when does that matter?

Everything is turning into a race/culture AND religion issue. As more cultures "diversify" this "great country," the more un-American it will become -- because God (oops, did I say God?) knows that we can't offend anyone.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by typoon

This is Crazy. This has been said many many times as far as I can remember. no one has had a problem with it. Gotta love the Judges these days.

It never actually used to be part of the pledge. Originally, it was only added in in private Catholic schools. My mother has a good recollection of moving from a Catholic school into a public one and having the pledge change on her when she was in high school. Eventually all the religious types got the public schools to insert it.

[Dakar]

("under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.")

I've never heard of that right, so this remains to be seen. If it actually holds up tho, then i guess the ruling holds water.

[osxisfun]

I think it was offically added during the mcarthy era. (50's? red scare era)

It was not there since the beginning of the country.

Great. Another red meat issue for the wingnuts to salivate over...

like that matters above 7 trillion in debt, karl rove outing a cia agent, OSAMMA still running free... 1800 americans dead on a lie and a asleep at the wheel president that only jumped to NOLA's aide after his two political hack appointees ****ed things up so badly that junior's already sagging ratings sagged even futher.

but thankgod (alah, buhda , yahweh or what ever the f imaginary bearded dude in the sky that created earth 7000 years ago you believe in) we are bringing up this important issue now.

diversion is key to keeping the masses at bay.

[RAILhead]

It was your apparent ilk that "brought this up," remember?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

I can't wait for them to "decide" that the flag, in and of itself, is also unconstitutional because it also impedes on individual rights.

Next up: praying in PRIVATE is unconstitutional.

The pre-show is already running in Colorado.

Originally Posted by from website

Mrs. Reiter and her husband David, received a cease-and-desist order from the agency that found her in violation of a city ordinance prohibiting more than one "prayer meeting" at a private residence per month.

http://web.archive.org/web/200407230...biblestudy.htm




-t

[osxisfun]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Hey dumbass, it was your apparent ilk that "brought this up," remember?

yep and doing the right thing will as usual will result in wingnuts using this to the fullest extent of the right wing noise machine and claiming anyone for this true separation of state and church measure is a god-less communist.

just becuase i don't believe in some imaginary adam and eve had two sons and all us people folk resulted from them doesn't mean I'm any more or less american.

of cousre the wingnuts won't see it that way.

and if it was directed at me... please don't call me an dumbass.... coming from a person that believes in some imaginary bearded dude in the sky... i really can't put too much "faith" in your opiion of my "ilk"

Just because I believe in a fossil record does not make a dumbass... water from wine and all the little animals were saved on a big big boat on the other hand...

[BlueSky]

...one nation, that can kick your ass...*

...one nation, under "A" in the phone book...

...one nation, but lots of internets...

...one nation, and Goddie, you're doing a heck of a job...


* stole that one.

[glideslope]

Why do people get so worked up over this? The Roberts Court will be in place for the next 40 years. Plenty of time to push the 9th into the Pacific.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Since when does that matter?

Everything is turning into a race/culture AND religion issue. As more cultures "diversify" this "great country," the more un-American it will become -- because God (oops, did I say God?) knows that we can't offend anyone.

Nice logic there, Maury.

You complained about a judicial decision relating to religion activity in schools by asking rhetorically whether or not the same would apply to the flag? Wiskedjak replied asking if the flag was a religious symbol and you replied above?!?

Well, IF the flag was a religious symbol--had a cross on it or the Star of David--then yes it would matter about the flag being a religious symbol.

But our flag has always been secular with no religious meaning attached to it. Whereas our, formerly secular, pledge of allegiance was made religious and now appears to be on the path of being returned to its previous secular state--so I hope.

Is there any particular reason why you want students in a secular public school system required to cite a pledge with a religous element to it? I certainly don't want them to do that; I want our public schools to remain devoutly secular.

[tie]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Since when does that matter?

Everything is turning into a race/culture AND religion issue. As more cultures "diversify" this "great country," the more un-American it will become -- because God (oops, did I say God?) knows that we can't offend anyone.

The pledge of allegiance includes the phrase "under god." Put that on the flag and we'll see what happens. You seem to be thinking of some completely different issue, perhaps you posted in the wrong thread? If not then you should really be blaming Clinton or talking about how spacefreak's alien pals snuck the WMDs out of Iraq.

No, I don't see any slippery slope here. Change the pledge back to its original form, and everyone is happy. The sky won't fall, and this "great country" will still be great. I really wish people would argue the issue instead of making wild, nonsensical extrapolations and exaggerations of the issue.

[Millennium]

Um... wtf? I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out exactly what the judge is saying here. I think he's trying to say that the Pledge of Allegiance is not unconstitutional, but that requiring kids to say it in school is.

If that's the case, then I don't see any problem with the status quo, at least from a legal standpoint. It is forbidden by law for schools to impose penalties for failing to say the Pledge. Any student may say the full Pledge, any part of it, or none of it at all, as they desire. This has been hashed out in the courts many times. Many religious groups have refused to say the Pledge for decades. My wife has omitted "under God" and "indivisible" since she was in school herself; now that she's a teacher she still does this, and conscientiously informs the students of their rights every year.

I have to say, I like my wife's way of informing her students. Perhaps a Miranda-style decision is needed here, whereby students must be informed of their right to refuse to say the Pledge or any part of it. Other than that, I see no reason to change the way things currently stand.

[smacintush]

Requiring any student to recite any pledge should be deemed unconstitutional, "God" or not.

[RAILhead]

You all missed my point.

[RAILhead]

And sorry for name-calling, man -- I edited my post.

[Millennium]

I've read up a bit more on this now, and it looks as though this isn't what actually happened. What happened was that the judge refused to dismiss the case.

This is the guy's second attempt to get the Pledge declared unconstitutional, it seems. The first time, he was piggybacking off of a nasty custody battle, and for this reason the Supreme Court refused to hear the case (they rarely take family cases). In response to this, he went through the legal work to get himself appointed as the legal representative for two other families, and has filed suit for the sole purpose of getting the pledge declared unconstitutional. If nothing else, it will make a better basis for a decision than the previous case did.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Next up: praying in PRIVATE is unconstitutional.

The pre-show is already running in Colorado.


http://web.archive.org/web/200407230...biblestudy.htm




-t

Uh dude... From TFA:

"Kent Strapko, the Denver zoning administrator, has said the once-a-month rule is usually invoked after complaints from neighbors over parking and noise. Such orders can apply to a gathering, such as book clubs, poker games or "Monday Night Football" parties."

It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with large meetings disrupting the neighborhood. The whole rest of the article is a debate on zoning.

[cpt kangarooski]

typoon--

This is Crazy. This has been said many many times as far as I can remember. no one has had a problem with it. Gotta love the Judges these days.

Judges don't bring cases to court, litigants do. So clearly, someone has had a problem with it. In fact, people have long had a problem with it (see e.g. the Barnette case from 1943). And I, personally, have a problem with it. (Though I object to the concept of the pledge more than its religious content. IMO ordinary people should not be asked to pledge loyalty to government; government should pledge its loyalty to its people)

dakar--

I've never heard of that right, so this remains to be seen.

That would be Lee v. Weisman, 505 US 577 (1992), one of the leading establishment clause cases from the Supreme Court. The gist of it was that there was a public school graduation, where the school invited a clergyman to say a prayer (n.b. that the school also told the clergyman what sort of prayer they wanted him to say). A student objected to it. The Court decided that it was improper for the government to, at an official function, have a prayer said, as this would involve the government supporting the religious content of the prayer. Furthermore, it was not acceptable to have the student not attend her own graduation; it cannot achieve the effect of withholding the ceremonial reward to the student who does not want to be subjected to government-supported prayer.

And then we come to the bit that's new to you:

We do not address whether that choice is acceptable if the affected citizens are mature adults, but we think the State may not, consistent with the Establishment Clause, place primary and secondary school children in this position. ... To recognize that the choice imposed by the State constitutes an unacceptable constraint only acknowledges that the government may no more use social pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may use more direct means.

...

questions of accommodation of religion, are not before us. The sole question presented is whether a religious exercise may be conducted at a graduation ceremony in circumstances where, as we have found, young graduates who object are induced to conform. No holding by this Court suggests that a school can persuade or compel a student to participate in a religious exercise. That is being done here, and it is forbidden by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Basically, the Court is saying that children are not really as aware of their rights, and as willing to stand up for them, as adults are. This being the case, the government should be particularly careful not to infringe on their rights, even if essentially through social pressure.

Consider for example, a kid on his first day at school, ever. He's 4 or 5, he's probably been told to follow the instructions of the teacher and so forth. He gets to his school, which is probably a strange place to him, and the very first thing at the start of the day is the pledge, which he probably hasn't encountered before. The teacher goes to lead the class in reciting it. Unknown to the kid, he does not have to recite it. Perhaps also unknown to him, it violates his family's religious beliefs. But he's likely to recite it anyway, since the teacher is, it's on the PA, and many of his classmates are.

Children should not be put in that kind of position.

turtle777--

Next up: praying in PRIVATE is unconstitutional.

Nope. Keeping the government out of the business of religion is exactly how we protect things such as praying in private. And even praying in public. If you value religious freedom, you'd be supporting Newdow.

Tie--

Change the pledge back to its original form, and everyone is happy.

Well, not me. But like I said, I abhor the idea of the pledge, whether it's Classic Pledge, or New Pledge.

Smacintush--

Requiring any student to recite any pledge should be deemed unconstitutional, "God" or not.

And that's been the law of the land for over 60 years. In other news of the same vintage, we won WW2. Hurrah!

smacintush--

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Since when does that matter?

Everything is turning into a race/culture AND religion issue. As more cultures "diversify" this "great country," the more un-American it will become -- because God (oops, did I say God?) knows that we can't offend anyone.

Or, perhaps as more cultures add to the diversity of your great country, the more American it will become.

What is "American" and how does something become "un-American"?

[Wiskedjak]

Just a question, why are American school children asked to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning? Are American adults asked to do this every morning as well? If not, why not?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by goMac

Uh dude... From TFA:

"Kent Strapko, the Denver zoning administrator, has said the once-a-month rule is usually invoked after complaints from neighbors over parking and noise. Such orders can apply to a gathering, such as book clubs, poker games or "Monday Night Football" parties."

It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with large meetings disrupting the neighborhood. The whole rest of the article is a debate on zoning.

Uh dude... From the very next sentence in TFA:

'But Mr. Sukulow noted that the zoning order received by the Reiters specifically stated that private homes could host just one "prayer meeting" per month. "Prayer meetings are held more that once a month in the single-unit dwelling...in violation of cited section," according to the document.'

[jonasmac]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

I think it was offically added during the mcarthy era. (50's? red scare era)
but thankgod (alah, buhda , yahweh or what ever the f imaginary bearded dude in the sky that created earth 7000 years ago you believe in) we are bringing up this important issue now.

diversion is key to keeping the masses at bay.

Hey man, no need to be disrespectful to other's beliefs. I'd rather be a being created "under God" than a primate who hasn't made much progress.

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally Posted by jonasmac

Hey man, no need to be disrespectful to other's beliefs. I'd rather be a being created "under God" than a primate who hasn't made much progress.

I dunno. I still like the bit from Cryptonomicon:

Let's set the existence-of-God issue aside for a later volume, and just stipulate that in some way, self-replicating organisms came into existence on this planet and immediately began trying to get rid of each other, either by spamming their environments with rough copies of themselves, or by more direct means which hardly need to be belabored. Most of them failed, and their genetic legacy was erased from the universe forever, but a few found some way to survive and to propagate. After about three billion years of this sometimes zany, frequently tedious fugue of carnality and carnage, Godfrey Waterhouse IV was born, in Murdo, South Dakota, to Blanche, the wife of a Congregational preacher named Bunyan Waterhouse. Like every other creature on the face of the earth, Godfrey was, by birthright, a stupendous badass, albeit in the somewhat narrow technical sense that he could trace his ancestry back up a long line of slightly less highly evolved stupendous badasses to that first self-replicating gizmo - which, given the number and variety of its descendants, might justifiably be described as the most stupendous badass of all time. Everyone and everything that wasn't a stupendous badass was dead. As nightmarishly lethal, memetically programmed death-machines went, these were the nicest you could ever hope to meet.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Smacintush--

And that's been the law of the land for over 60 years. In other news of the same vintage, we won WW2. Hurrah!

Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking. In my defense I hadn't slept in 2 days.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Just a question, why are American school children asked to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning? Are American adults asked to do this every morning as well? If not, why not?

Um, it's a brainwashing tactic?

Other than that I got nuthin'. I don't like the idea of the pledge in school, never did.

[mojo2]

This ruling establishes atheism as the defacto state religion says former U.S. Atty. General Dick Thornburgh.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Um, it's a brainwashing tactic?

Other than that I got nuthin'. I don't like the idea of the pledge in school, never did.

It's in individuals' interests to band together, in unity there is strength. The strongest we can be and the most protected we can be and the free-est we can be and so on and so forth (no, we're not talking about the one little guy who will cry he's the exception to my rule of thumb...we're talking about 260 million individuals) is to band together. That band is, ultimately, the US of A.

The pledge of allegience is designed to get people programmed at an early age to favor the thoughts, actions and decisions that will preserve and perpetuate the national framework which serves us all and in which we all depend.

The Constitution says the government should not favor any religion, not that we should favor the ABSENCE of religion.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Uh dude... From the very next sentence in TFA:

'But Mr. Sukulow noted that the zoning order received by the Reiters specifically stated that private homes could host just one "prayer meeting" per month. "Prayer meetings are held more that once a month in the single-unit dwelling...in violation of cited section," according to the document.'

So let me get this straight...

Republicans believe schools should be able to choose to allow specific religions in...

But a city can't choose to be non religious?

To roughly draw on a quote a conservative member of this board who said the following on states deciding gay rights, they can abide by the rules or leave to someplace that will allow them to live their lifestyle.

If you want to play the separation of church and state card in this issue you must separate the church out of schools. Separation of church and state is not a only-the-law-some-of-the-time rule.

Stop flip flopping guys. The lesson I'm getting is if you're gay a city can tell you not to be gay, but if a city decides you can't be catholic, well that's just downright wrong.

[cpt kangarooski]

mojo2--

It's in individuals' interests to band together, in unity there is strength. The strongest we can be and the most protected we can be and the free-est we can be and so on and so forth (no, we're not talking about the one little guy who will cry he's the exception to my rule of thumb...we're talking about 260 million individuals) is to band together. That band is, ultimately, the US of A.

Of course, at one point, if we had banded together, sought unity, and so forth, we would not have had the revolution from Britian.

Your mistake is thinking that unity is freedom. Often it's just the opposite. A truly free society is often characterized by the absence of unity, save when individuals choose -- as individuals -- to band together. And if they're individuals, oft times they will not want to band together, as it won't serve their interests.

The pledge of allegience is designed to get people programmed at an early age to favor the thoughts, actions and decisions that will preserve and perpetuate the national framework which serves us all and in which we all depend.

So you're saying that in the cause of freedom, we must brainwash people into supporting a specific government? That's quite the doublespeak. Do you also find that war is peace, and love is hate?

If you believed in freedom, you'll accept that other, free people, will do exactly the opposite of what you want them to do. They can do this, because they are free. As you are free to do the opposite of what they might want you to do. Imposing your will on others is the act of killing freedom.

The Constitution says the government should not favor any religion, not that we should favor the ABSENCE of religion.

The only way for the government to favor no religion is for the government to ignore religion completely. For it to not even be able to recognize that religion exists.

Since the government is a seperate entity from individuals, the government being totally absent from their religious lives gives them the freedom to pursue and hold religious beliefs as they will.

The absence of government-supported religion not only is not the same thing, not even close, as the absence of religion altogether, but it is the best way to ensure that religion is vibrant and healthy and free. Or are you saying that religion is so weak in this country, so far on its deathbed, that the only way it could continue to exist would be to be propped up by the government?

I think that people will continue to believe in God -- or not -- without God being in the pledge. So what are you so worried about? Do you have so little faith?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The pledge of allegience is designed to get people programmed at an early age to favor the thoughts, actions and decisions that will preserve and perpetuate the national framework which serves us all and in which we all depend.

Quoted for emphasis

[zizban]

The decision wont hold up. There is no compelling argument that is a violation (I'm personally against those word in the pledge)of the seperation of church and state, so expect this to die at the Supreme Court.

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally Posted by zizban

The decision wont hold up. There is no compelling argument that is a violation (I'm personally against those word in the pledge)of the seperation of church and state, so expect this to die at the Supreme Court.

And precisely what caselaw do you have to support your claim? Have you looked at the reasoning in the previous Newdow cases? It's pretty solid.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

And precisely what caselaw do you have to support your claim? Have you looked at the reasoning in the previous Newdow cases? It's pretty solid.

I'll take that bet. There's no way the Supreme Court will uphold that ruling, especially with O'Connor gone.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The pledge of allegience is designed to get people programmed at an early age…

Yeah, that's what I said. Brainwashing.

The Constitution says the government should not favor any religion, not that we should favor the ABSENCE of religion.

Oh, I agree 100%. I was speaking of the pledge in general, not the "under God" part.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The Constitution says the government should not favor any religion, not that we should favor the ABSENCE of religion.

Does the phrase "under God" not favor a religion?

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by goMac

So let me get this straight...

Republicans believe schools should be able to choose to allow specific religions in...

Who said they wanted only specific religions in?

But a city can't choose to be non religious?

Of course a city itself is non-religious. However they cannot prevent people from practicing religion in their city or prevent them from gathering to practice their religion, because this would be completely at odds with the first amendment.

To roughly draw on a quote a conservative member of this board who said the following on states deciding gay rights, they can abide by the rules or leave to someplace that will allow them to live their lifestyle.

What does gay rights have to do with anything in this thread?

If you want to play the separation of church and state card in this issue you must separate the church out of schools. Separation of church and state is not a only-the-law-some-of-the-time rule.

Church is out of schools. Most conservatives just want kids to be able to pray themselves (not led by a teacher), as long as this is during some kind of free time and doesn't disrupt class, which they should be able to.

Stop flip flopping guys. The lesson I'm getting is if you're gay a city can tell you not to be gay, but if a city decides you can't be catholic, well that's just downright wrong.

...

Freedom of religion is in the first amendment. Freedom of sexual preference is not. I really don't see how you can try and draw parallels there. And yes, setting up how marriages work is a responsibility of local (State) governments, so a city can tell you that you can't get married to someone of the same sex.

[cpt kangarooski]

deej5871--

Church is out of schools. Most conservatives just want kids to be able to pray themselves (not led by a teacher), as long as this is during some kind of free time and doesn't disrupt class, which they should be able to.

I disagree that religion is wholly out of schools. Look at the pledge, for example. But I would agree that there's not only no problem with school children engaging in their own prayers as you describe, but that it would be unconstitutional for it to be otherwise.

Freedom of religion is in the first amendment. Freedom of sexual preference is not.

True. It's in the 14th Amendment.

And yes, setting up how marriages work is a responsibility of local (State) governments, so a city can tell you that you can't get married to someone of the same sex.

Which would violate the 14th Amendment again. We ran into this when state governments tried to tell people that they couldn't get married to someone of different race. As it turns out, states aren't quite that free to fiddle with marriage however they like.

[spacefreak]

Our inalienable rights are granted not by man, but by God (which represents nature). This is a fundamental basis of our society. Rights do not come from some king or dictator like in many other societies. They are natural the moment one is born. The moment you take God out of that equation, pretty much anything goes. The natural rights of man as the foundation is removed, and then the society turns to sh-t.

God grants man these rights, who in turn creates a government to secure and protect those rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.). That's the underlying principle. I'm not a religious person, but I understand that much.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Does the phrase "under God" not favor a religion?

The founding fathers clearly were religion FRIENDLY and specifically took pains to acknowledge their belief in God but wanted to prevent government being an arm of any particular religious belief.

But you must remember one of THE MAIN reasons the Puritans came here was for religious FREEDOM!

They wanted atheists to be free to practice their belief as well as they were interested in protecting the religious freedoms of a Catholic, let's say.

By striking down any and EVERY reference to God, the California atheist is going farther than the founding fathers intended.

So, instead of recognizing all religions but maintaining a distance from any one of them we NOW have NO recognition of religion at all. Thus, atheism becomes the official state religion.

This is NOT what anyone (but the small minority of atheists) ever wanted to happen.

This is awful.

He should be ashamed.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

True. It's in the 14th Amendment.

Originally Posted by Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I see nothing about sexual orientation in here. Perhaps the 14th Amendment should itself be amended to include this, and if so then that's fine; it's been done before. There is a well-documented process for doing exactly this.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I see nothing about sexual orientation in here. Perhaps the 14th Amendment should itself be amended to include this, and if so then that's fine; it's been done before. There is a well-documented process for doing exactly this.

He probably should have said "it's an implication of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment." The 14th Amendment refers to "persons" not being denied the equal protections of the laws. Persons means everyone. The 14th Amendment isn't limited to worrying only about one group.

I don't think this was an oversight or an accident. The 13th Amendment shows that Congress knew how to write an amendment that was only about racism and abolishing slavery. They chose not to do the same thing with the 14th. I think what they were trying to do was give effect to the words of the Declaration of Independence "that all men are created equal." All men means everyone.

Interesting historical note, during the ratification debates in Congress into the 14th Amendment, there was a discussion about the implications of its sweeping language into the rights of women (who at the time didn't have the vote, and who had other legal disabilities). It took a while (and an amendment on voting), but today, 14th Amendment equal protection analysis is the law as applied to gender. So the fact that a class isn't in the text is irrelevant. Persons means people, and we are people. And equal protection of the laws means equal protection of the laws. Not one rule for thee, and another for me.

[Y3a]

The question IS:

Where will this nonsense end?

What kind of country will we have when god and religion are just folklore, and the populace are free to do anything without judgement from others?

We are already well on that road with the schools trying hard to make sure that the achievers are not reccognized for fear of embarrassing some idiot parents horrid brat who still won't apply himself to learn to read. Same goes in the business world with Affirmative Action, and the uneven tax rates which punish the sucessful.

[OSX Abuser]

What was wrong with the Pledge for the first 150 years before Truman added "The Under God" part to show those commies we had god on our side??

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Y3a

The question IS:

Where will this nonsense end?

What kind of country will we have when god and religion are just folklore, and the populace are free to do anything without judgement from others?

Who here is advocating that god and religion become "folklore" in our country?

And what is your point about the populace being "free to do anything without judgment from others"? If we were to remove all semblance of religion from this country we would still have our civil strictures--codified in written or un-written law--on what is considered acceptable or unacceptable by society.

Or are you concerned about the moral judgment that frequently comes from religion? Is moral judgment--inspired by religion--what you are referring to when you talk about the populace being "free to do anything without judgment from others"?

Your logic--equating an asbence of the Christian god from secular life with a decline in social behavior--seems to imply that you believe religion is what keeps us civilized. Is that true? Do you believe religion is the main civilizing force in this country that keeps people from becoming less moral or altogether amoral?

And if so, why do you believe that? Do you not think people are capable of acting in a decent, moral manner without being heavily influenced by religious belief?

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally Posted by OSX Abuser

What was wrong with the Pledge for the first 150 years before Truman added "The Under God" part to show those commies we had god on our side??

You mean 62 years. The pledge was written in 1892.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

mojo2--

Of course, at one point, if we had banded together, sought unity, and so forth, we would not have had the revolution from Britian.

Well, that's sorta what was addressed in the pre-amble to 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.

PREAMBLE
Some claim all of this is the preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

And then the reasons are listed for their declaring themselves independent. They banded together and sought unity from tyranny and despotism.

Your mistake is thinking that unity is freedom. Often it's just the opposite. A truly free society is often characterized by the absence of unity, save when individuals choose -- as individuals -- to band together. And if they're individuals, oft times they will not want to band together, as it won't serve their interests.

I beg you pardon, my MISTAKE ( ) is thinking unity is freedom??? I specifically addressed your exception before you made it and yet you went ahead, trying to attribute to me a notion I hadn't entertained. You are too bright to think I was saying this and you know I wouldn't.

If you would pounce on a less than perfectly spelled out explanation, I must advise there are some here who already bemoan my wordy posts, and their future complaints YOU'd have addressed to your PM box???

No, the only reason for you to even try to make this point is to clarify the issue to those who really don't understand these things and on that basis I'll wrassle the point with you.

There are degrees of freedom. When a young man turns 18 he is free of his Parent's rules. Except he's not because he depends on them for school money and living expenses. And he agrees to live by the rules of the college. Then, when he graduates, he's free. Except that he has to earn a living and submits to the rules of his employer. Then, he gets himself a wife and is bound (if not gagged) to follow certain rules of behavior in marriage. He decides to join a fraternal organization and a church. And the whole time he has also been subject to the city, state and federal laws.

But the unity is freedom assertion is only true in relative terms. In the case of the 13 Colonies banding together as one DID provide them freedom but it wasn't simply the banding that made them free. However, as the old saying goes, if they hadn't hung together they'd have been hanged individually.

That said, the forefathers DID want freedom from the King's tyranny. They DID seek unity for strength in numbers. And they DID revolt from England. So, even though freedom does not always come from unity, in this case it was a necessary step to replacing the "freedoms" of being a Royal subject with the freedoms of being independent.

So you're saying that in the cause of freedom, we must brainwash people into supporting a specific government? That's quite the doublespeak. Do you also find that war is peace, and love is hate?

You, I, we all are victims of the kind of brainwashing I'm talking about.

Wash your hands before you eat. Don't run with scissors. Don't throw balls indoors. Don't swim an hour after eating. Say your prayers before you go to bed. Do your homework before you play. Return things to where you found them. Don't forget to say please and thank you. Look both ways before crossing the street.

Certain things are drilled into you while growing up because it is in your individual best interests and in the interest of others and if those lessons are to become part of your belief system they must be instilled.

A farmer teaches his children how to perform the essential tasks and habits that a good farmer must have. Why? Because if he doesn't the children will be unable or unwilling to tend to the farm once they are of age. They will have no skills in farming and will have to go learn to do something else for a living and after the farmer retires there would be no guarantee that the farm would continue to provide for the remaining family if the offspring hadn't been brainwashed into thinking the farm was important, and working to become good farmers and discovering they loved the land and they loved farming the land.

It isn't easy being a farmer but it is worth the effort. Yet, without the right kind of upbringing who would just naturally choose farming as a career?

The pledge of alliegence is how we assure ourselves that future generations will be committed to preserving this contry so it will endure and thrive and remain strong, viable and healthy enough to provide for all of us and our future generations.

That "brainwashing" is an important part of becoming a citizen because it helps perpetuate the system that provides us the comforts and freedoms we enjoy.

Just imagine the young computer 'geniuses' from America who post here at MacNN if they WEREN'T imbued with SOME sense of alliegence to this country? WOW! What an abortion we'd have then!

If you believed in freedom, you'll accept that other, free people, will do exactly the opposite of what you want them to do. They can do this, because they are free. As you are free to do the opposite of what they might want you to do. Imposing your will on others is the act of killing freedom.

If you are now talking about Iraq, allow me the use of another analogy. Catching a leopard.

A leaopard is a big, strong, wiild cat which doesn't want to be captured or caught. If you are a wild life veterinarian sometimes you must capture or subdue critters and you use different methods designed to result in the least amount of trouble to you and the least amount of trauma to the animal who will, naturally resist your efforts.

After you tranquilize the animal and do your job you release the cat and once again it is free, but it is better off because of your medical efforts.

The Iraqi suicide attacks DO NOT represent the will of the WHOLE country, or else they wouldn't be targeting their own people. The majority of the Iraqi people understand their best hope for freedom is by resisting the terrorists and forging ahead with the establishment of their OWN system of government.

This means that these peace loving peoples are fighting for their freedoam against the radical Muslim forces who represent absolute tyranny and subjection and would have Iraq step back into the cloak of and veil of Islam and very strict version of it, too. So strict that even other Muslims don't like it. THAT'S what they are fighting and dying to resist.

There are at least TWO different wills being contested here. One, where the people are being encouraged to carve out the guidelines for their own freedom. Another, where the people are being intimidated to fall in line and obey or else face death.

Who, in YOUR opinion is the one killing freedom?

The only way for the government to favor no religion is for the government to ignore religion completely. For it to not even be able to recognize that religion exists.Since the government is a seperate entity from individuals, the government being totally absent from their religious lives gives them the freedom to pursue and hold religious beliefs as they will.

Oh, so now you are saying that YOU know better than the FOUNDING FATHERS OF THIS COUNTRY as to how BEST to set up a government?

Thanks, but I'll stick with their plan.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doi-pream.htm

God and Christianity are now acknowledged in the fundamental law of the nation." And what is the proof of such acknowledgment? The word oath, a passing reference to the Christian Sabbath in the clause, "Sundays excepted," making the Sabbath a dies non in the reckoning of days during which the Resident may retain a bill for approval, the mention of the common law, and the formula of date. These are all. They hardly require notice. It may be said in brief, however, that the mention of the Sabbath is simply an incidental allusion, an evidence, indeed, that there was a Sabbath known; but it is no acknowledgment of the obligation of the Sabbath. The dating again is no part of the instrument. It merely marks the time. And more than all else, the name of God was excluded from the form of the President's oath, incorporated in the Constitution. Can these features of the Constitution, with a mention of the common law, be regarded as an adequate acknowledgment of the nation's subjection to God and his government? It is now almost universally admitted that they are not religious acknowledgments at all. So completely devoid is our Constitution of any religious character that multitudes of both infidels and Christians agree in stating that it is no more Christian than Mohammedan. As Ex-President Woolsey declared in his paper read before the Evangelical Alliance, it needs no change to adapt it to a Mohammedan nation. Admiring, as we do, the many exellencies of our Constitution, we are constrained to admit this sad defect. If it is still claimed that an acknowledgment of God and Christianity is in the Constitution, it must also be admitted that such an acknowledgment, now dimly there at best, should be made so clear and explicit that no room may be left for doubt. What is there rightfully ought to be there indisputably.

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

The absence of government-supported religion not only is not the same thing, not even close, as the absence of religion altogether, but it is the best way to ensure that religion is vibrant and healthy and free. Or are you saying that religion is so weak in this country, so far on its deathbed, that the only way it could continue to exist would be to be propped up by the government?

I think that people will continue to believe in God -- or not -- without God being in the pledge. So what are you so worried about? Do you have so little faith?

Who ARE you and what have you done to Capt. Kangarooski???

Your argument reminds me of a virgin trying to convince a friend who has had gotten married that the single life is better than being married.

When you TRY it and then say you don't like it, THAT'S when I'll listen to your argument.

Billions more people believe than don't. The most brilliant minds that have ever lived have believed. Churches ARE doing just fine TYVM. And the Founding Fathers acknowledged God in the Constitution.

Why do you think this is?

Hmm?