San Francisco — A U.S. 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 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 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 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.

Taken from Toronto Globe and Mail.

Guns don't kill people. Husbands who come home early kill people.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

I think we need a law that judges must pass a test every couple of years certifying their competency. Obviously a couple of these geezers are senile.

from a distraught child

"Dear Lord, why do you allow so much hatred and violence in our schools?"


From the Lord:

"My child.....I am so very very sorry, i would really like to help but I'm not allowed in your schools"

Palomino 2000 +
swiftech mcx 462
Gigabyte Ga7-vrxp Bios f4
2x256 kingston hyper x
ddr370 @ cas 2 1t
r9700pro / sb audigy
40 gb maxtor ata133
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
xp 2600/333
asus a7n8x deluxe
2x256 kingston hyperx
ddr 370 @ cas2 1t
r9

"dear god, why is there so much violence in the world in your name"

god: because people will use any excuse to act like assholes!

Thought you'd like this from Ted N. Pretty well sums it up for me.

Written by Ted Nugent, the rock singer and hunter/naturalist, upon
hearing that California Senators B. Boxer and D. Feinstein denounced him for
being a "gun owner" and a "Rock Star". This was his response after telling
the senators about his past contributions to children's charities and
scholarship foundations which have totaled more than $13.7 million in
the last 5 years!!

"I'm a Bad American - this pretty much sums it up for me. I like big
trucks, big boats, big houses, and naturally, pretty women. I believe
the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some mid level
governmental functionary with a bad comb over who wants to give it away to crack
addicts squirting out babies. I don't care about appearing compassionate.

I think playing with toy guns doesn't make you a killer. I believe
ignoring your kids and giving them Prozac might.

I think I'm doing better than the homeless. I don't think being a
minority makes you noble or victimized. I have the right not to be
tolerant of others because they are different, weird or make me mad.
This is my life to live, and not necessarily up to others' expectations.

I know what SEX is and there are not varying degrees of it.

I don't celebrate Kwanzaa. But if you want to that's fine; I just don't
feel like everyone else should have to.

I believe that if you are selling me a Dairy Queen shake, a pack of
cigarettes, or hotel room you do it in English. As of matter of fact,
if you are an American citizen you should speak English. My uncles
and forefathers shouldn't have had to die in vain so you can leave the
countries you were born in to come disrespect ours, and make us
bend to your will. Get over it.

I think the cops have every right to shoot your sorry butt if you're
running from them after they tell you to stop. If you can't understand
the word 'freeze' or 'stop' in English, see the previous line.

I don't use the excuse "it's for the children" as a shield for
unpopular opinions or actions.

I know how to count votes and I feel much safer letting a machine with
no political affiliation do a recount when needed.

I know what the definition of lying is, and it isn't based on the word
"is" -ever.

I don't think just because you were not born in this country, you
qualify for any special loan programs, gov't sponsored bank loans, etc.,so you
can open a hotel, 7-Eleven, trinket shop, or any thing else, while the
indigenous peoples can't get past a high school education because they
can't afford it.

I didn't take the initiative in inventing the Internet.

I thought the Taco Bell dog was funny.

I want them to bring back safe and sane fireworks.

I believe no one ever died because of something Ozzy Osbourne, Ice-T or
Marilyn Manson sang, but that doesn't mean I want to listen to that
crap from someone else's car when I'm stopped at a red light. But I respect
your right to.

I think that being a student doesn't give you any more enlightenment
than working at Blockbuster or Jack In The Box.

I don't want to eat or drink anything with the words light, lite or
fat-free on the package.

Our soldiers did not go to some foreign country and risk their lives in
vain and defend our Constitution so that decades later you can tell me
it's a living document ever changing and is open to interpretation. The
guys who wrote it were light years ahead of anyone today, and they
meant what they said - now leave the document alone, or there's going to be
trouble.

I don't hate the rich. I help the poor.

I know wrestling is fake.

I've never owned, or was a slave, and a large percentage of our
forefathers weren't wealthy enough to own one either. Please stop
blaming me because some prior white people were idiots - and
remember, tons of white, Indian, Chinese, and other races have
been enslaved too - it was wrong for every one of them.



I believe a self-righteous liberal Democrat with a cause is more
Dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude.

I want to know exactly which church is it where the "Reverend" Jessie Jackson preaches; and, what exactly is his job function.

I own a gun, you can own a gun, and any red blooded American should be
allowed to own a gun, but if you use it in a crime, then you will serve
the time.

I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and
continue to make more. If it makes you mad, then invent the next
operating system that's better and put your name on the building.
Ask your buddy that invented the Internet to help you.

I don't believe in hate crime legislation. Even suggesting it makes me
mad. You're telling me that someone who is a minority,gay, disabled,
another nationality, or otherwise different from the mainstream of this
country has more value as a human being that I do as a white male.

If someone kills anyone, I'd say that it's a hate crime. We don't need
more laws! Let's enforce the ones we already have.

I think turkey bacon, turkey beef, turkey fake anything sucks.

I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child-it takes a
parent with the guts to stand up to the kid and spank his butt
and say "NO!" when it's necessary to do so.

I'll admit that the only movie that ever made me cry was Ole Yeller.

I didn't realize Dr. Seuss was a genius until I had a kid.

I will not be frowned upon or be looked down upon or be made to keep
silent because I have these beliefs and opinions. I thought this
country allowed me that right. I will not conform or compromise just to keep
from hurting somebody's feelings. I'm neither angry nor disenfranchised, no
matter how desperately the mainstream media would like the world to
believe otherwise.

Yes, I guess by some people's definition, I may be a bad American. But
that's tough."

Ted Nugent

OFFICIALLY IN THE DANGEROUS LUNATIC HALL OF FAME.

Well said by the "Motor City Madman"...gotta love him.



Thanx w9ffc.

Actually, I've got to disagree with this statement:

Our soldiers did not go to some foreign country and risk their lives in vain and defend our Constitution so that decades later you can tell me it's a living document ever changing and is open to interpretation. The guys who wrote it were light years ahead of anyone today, and they meant what they said - now leave the document alone, or there's going to be trouble.

Part of the genious of the Founding Fathers was their foresight that the Constitution may need to be ammended in the future. That's why we have the 27 Amendments to the US Constitution covering everything from the Bill of Rights -- which are really 10 amendments -- to the two term limit for the President to a women's right to vote. The Constitution really is a living document and that's a good thing because it keeps it from becoming outdated and irrelevant. (Not that it needs frequent amending, 27 amendments in 215 years is a pretty good track record.)

The first 15 admendments came immediately after the Consitution, the 19th was a mistake we made as we are still dealing with the remants of that one.

Changes are to be made by the states, not federal judges, if we disagree with their interpretation we have no recourse. Sure, you will talk about the system, but really?

Not to worry, the world constitution is coming, then with one or two more US generations and the US will become more like Russia (homeland defense being the Trojan horse) was as Russia starts to become more like we were right after WWII.

Difference being is that their (Russian) infastructure will be created to get at the oil and a middle class will develop, follow our bell curve (cultural differences acknowledged) as the marketing mavens convince them to buy coca cola, plastic do-hickeys, cars, then you need roads, service stations, houses, etc.

Watch, wait, observe.

Under Construction

wellllllllllllllll, now i know why i have always liked Mr. Nugent

we think alike!!! could only disagree on two items

AMAZING

GODBLESS YOU Mr Nugent AND god keep you too!!!!!!!!

DOM

I see nothing wrong with this. "Under god" is blatant hypocrisy, is it not?

ruggedwb: What are you saying? Kids can talk about god all they want in a school, it's only the school itself which isn't allowed to promote any specific religion.

I don't feel that its necessary to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag over and over again. It just becomes a recitation. I've pledged my allegiance and I strongly believe in the principles of that pledge; I don't need to do it again. My marriage vows were a pledge which I spoke only once and I will have been married 40 years as of next October.

bobbo

I do believe in God but I understand that not everybody does and not everybody should have to. I believe that government should not be for or against religion. Separation of church and state is the right thing to do. The US is about freedom. People who come here should have the right to worship whatever they choose or not worship anything at all. If we push songs or poems or antems etc that prasie God on people then we are forceing a belief on them. I am a Christian, I do beleive in God but I will sing songs to God and pray and worship on my own time, not when a public school or governmernt tells me too. I personally like to see the words in God we Trust on a dollar bill because I do trust in God. But it probably should not be there....because I would not like it so much if it said in Buddah we Trust because I dont believe in Buddah. Anything Government related should make no stand about religion. Religious beliefs should be made at the Individual level.

Garbru

Well. if anyone is REALLY put out by "In God We Trust" on their money, I'd be glad to provide my address to send it to me. I'll get rid of the filthy stuff so you won't have to look at it again. }>

All my money says "In Gold We Trust".

This is simple to fix. Change the words in the Pledge to, "One Nation, Under Goddess". None of the people who have a problem with the judges ruling would be against reciting a pledge with those words in it would they?

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

In this day and age of whining minorities, if you ask about God, the answer is "Now, about God. She's black" }>

Grogan

Until a few years ago, our National Anthem was only played before international sporting events. It was a stirring moment - the crowd would stand as one and sing it together, and then pay due respect to the Anthem of the visiting team, and it visibly lifted the players.

Now, it's played every week before every interclub game often by third-rate performers, and to many players and spectators it's just another time-killer before the real entertainment starts. Familiarity breeds contempt!

Bobbo, I think your comparison to the marriage vows is possibly the most intelligent comment in this thread.

Insert text here

While I agree with Alex, I am sure that IF the supreme court accepts an appeal, it will be overturned. I think it possible the supreme court will accept the expected challenge, as they did with the appeal to the florida supreme court ruling last December.

This ruling by the circuit court is directly in contradiction with a Supreme Court statement in 1992. Expect it to be overturned, rapidly.

It is fortunate in this case that the Supreme Court has the last word on the issue. However, don't expect it to be quick and then over with. I'm afraid that this issue will be with us "forever" as there are those on both sides who won't let it rest, no matter what the out come.

JP

I'm not a religous person. I tend to believe your business is your own. But this absolutly insane piddlying around with word choices and pecking through every damned piece of crap by these socalled wise men we have as judges, advocates, holy fathers and politicians outta be shoved up their )*&^%(^&%.

Is that what we are paying these people for, to spend their time mincing around word choices and phrases, nibble here, adding there, spending a fortune on printing, reprinting costs And the news media latching on to this insanity as thoough it was newsworthy, who the hell cares?

As a kid, growing up in the forties, none of us thought anything about it, making the pledge to allegiance to the flag. It was just something we all did....I never thought it was so bad having God in there, seemed to give us something to aim for, a decent standard of living, a way to conduct ourselves.
Too bad more of us didn't take it to heart.

The phrase "under God" was not in the pledge until 1954, Old Dude, you never said it or heard it in the 1940's.

Shelly

Not that it needed confirming,coming from Shelly...but confirmed,nonetheless,by the the first entry in a "Google" search...

There are some things that are very stupid in our country.
I havn't done much research on this topic, so if there are any falacies in my statements, please excuse them.
Being agnostic, I could really care less about the whole "one nation under God". Never effected me, hell, I didn't even think about it until I was 12.
BUT! If the pledge of allegiance is banned from school, so should money. I do believe that is says "In God we trust" on our currency. So, just to be frank, money shouldn't be allowed in school.
Our country is full of many religions, and even anti-religions. Jews, Christians, Presbyterians, Atheist, Agnostic. Just to name a few. I personally believe that putting the word "God" on our money, and whatnot, is awfully evangelistic. But, I've accepted, moved on, and got over it. It's not a big deal, and do ban something from school like the pledge of allegiance is rediculous. Those are my two cents. Feel free to agree, disagree, or don't even care.

"BUT! If the pledge of allegiance is banned from school, so should money. I do believe that is says "In God we trust" on our currency. So, just to be frank, money shouldn't be allowed in school."

This isn't about the whole pledge, only the two words "Under god." Nobodies trying to ban the pledge of alledgiance.

Like I said, I havn't done much research on this yet.

But in that case, don't you think that the government should remove "In God We Trust" from our currencies?

Yes. It's obvious that Eisenhower was showing preference to monotheistic religions and attempting to associate God with America (as was part of the rampant anti-communism of the day) when he put the phrase "In god we trust" on US currency in the 1950s.

I was unaware that that phrase didnt appear untill then.
See, it's true. You do learn something new every day

"In God we Trust" goes back to the Civil War on coinage, The 84th Congress made it the national motto extended it to paper money in 1957.

From the US Treasury:

The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

Another Act of Congress passed on March 3, 1865. It allowed the Mint Director, with the Secretary's approval, to place the motto on all gold and silver coins that "shall admit the inscription thereon." Under the Act, the motto was placed on the gold double-eagle coin, the gold eagle coin, and the gold half-eagle coin. It was also placed on the silver dollar coin, the half-dollar coin and the quarter-dollar coin, and on the nickel three-cent coin beginning in 1866. Later, Congress passed the Coinage Act of February 12, 1873. It also said that the Secretary "may cause the motto IN GOD WE TRUST to be inscribed on such coins as shall admit of such motto."

The use of IN GOD WE TRUST has not been uninterrupted. The motto disappeared from the five-cent coin in 1883, and did not reappear until production of the Jefferson nickel began in 1938. Since 1938, all United States coins bear the inscription. Later, the motto was found missing from the new design of the double-eagle gold coin and the eagle gold coin shortly after they appeared in 1907. In response to a general demand, Congress ordered it restored, and the Act of May 18, 1908, made it mandatory on all coins upon which it had previously appeared. IN GOD WE TRUST was not mandatory on the one-cent coin and five-cent coin. It could be placed on them by the Secretary or the Mint Director with the Secretary's approval.

The motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909, and on the ten-cent coin since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since July 1, 1908.

A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) was converting to the dry intaglio printing process. During this conversion, it gradually included IN GOD WE TRUST in the back design of all classes and denominations of currency.

Shelly

Thanks Shelly.

It's not a matter of "thinking" If someone wishes to file a federal lawsuit challenging "In God we Trust" on currency, a federal court will have to rule on it, and that ruling can be challenged on appeal. It can get very expensive.

That is what happened in the Pledge case. A man filed suit, he was an atheist and his son was forced to recite the Pledge in school. That by the way is already illegal. A student can not be forced to recite the Pledge, it is voluntary under a previous Supreme Court ruling. The judge involved had to make a ruling. Whether you happen to agree with the ruling or not, the ruling was based upon the Constitution and previous Supreme Court Rulings. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide the issue, and having read the text of the judges ruling, it could go either way. Nothing this Supreme Court does would surprise me. They have been more political than judicial of late.

Todays ruling was from a judge in The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and I thought it was very well written.

Shelly

This court has their opinions overturned more often than any other court.This was a ruling of three of the judges with a 2 to 1 decision.It is still possible that the full court may review the decision.
The thing that struck me the most was the BS by all the politicians in jumping on the band wagon in deploring it.These phoney aholes make the judges look good by comparison.If this reaches the Supreme Court and it will because the political hacks will be sure it does,it will be overturned.Shelly is right that it was a well written opinion.However if you saw and heard the guy on TV who brought the case his reasoning and comments will be detrimental to the final decision.This type of case is a slam dunk when brought to a SAN FRANCISCO court

81 Newbee

Here is the full court ruling If anyone really cares. It is 29 pages long.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/062602_pledgeruling.pdf

Shelly

"The decision appears to create a conflict of circuits, as the teacher-led recitation of the Pledge was upheld (although pupils are free not to say participate) in Sherman v. Wheeling Consolidated School District 21, 980 F. 2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 950 (1993). Conflicts of circuits on constitutional issues usually lead to Supreme Court review.

The Supreme Court has held in dicta (non-binding statements in decisions) that the pledge creates no Establishment Clause violation, a point the 9th Circuit's majority seemed to ignore. In County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), the Court said "Our previous opinions have considered in dicta the motto* and the pledge, characterizing them as consistent with the proposition that government may not communicate an endorsement of religious belief." Even some of the most liberal justices have found the pledge non-problematic. In his concurrence in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, Justice Brennan, probably the most liberal justice to ever sit on the Court, stated that "reciting the pledge may be no more of a religious exercise than reading aloud of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address."

At least five members of the current Court (Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia and Kennedy) have endorsed the pledge in dicta in other cases, including cases overturning other forms of religious expression in schools, such as prayer."

From a lawyer of my acquantaince.

Shelly...only you would catch that...

Well I stand corrected and I guess that says something about how much attention we all paid to the pledge as we recited it. I DO remember they changed the salute we made during the war because it looked too much like the Nazi salute. I...think.... that's when it was changed to a hand over the heart...

Sorry folks, I'm not a very accurate person......

You took the words right out of my mouth Shelley.

Jazzgirl

Most of my family are Jehovah's Witnesses (I am not) so it has been a big problem for them to say the pledge of allegiance, under God or no.

Ditto Sharon. I knew well what is was like to sit there in class while all those around me recited it and that is why I am now a proud Pagon.

Stranger than life

Well, imho, i believe God probably agrees; after all, the U.S.A. never really has been Under God; it would take blindness, living in denial or lack of knowledge of the history of this country, to think otherwise.

Being what i hope to be a christian, and some day forgiven for what ever relatively minor sins i have committed, i prefer that the constitution of the usa be amended in this way; otherwise, it is hypocrisy, which is what it has been, so far. it is not good to lie to children, either.

God, in the christian sense, has nothing to do with the govt of the USA. I am sure that He is quite displeased with the grotesqueness of this govt; its hegemonious, hypocritical, lying, deceiving, murderous, ... ways.

Hence, i am now in comfort, that they decided to take out reference to my God.

Thanks for the good news.

mike

p.s. no, i do not mean this as a joke. also, this is not to say that i do not think that there are good, sane, sound americans, either; there are, and a fair number, but they have no power over this govt and its grotesque manners, where hypocrisy and hegemony reign, though also incompetence, albeit to what i consider a lesser extent; although, could be wrong about the latter. maybe it is more incompetence than the uglier attributes i mentioned; maybe. to be a true patriot, of any country, well, one must absolutely be objectively critical, wrt both pros and cons; and there is more than plenty of the latter in this govt, now the super power, and horribly so, of this planet.

p.s.s. no, i am not a facist, terrorist supporter, or anything of the sort. i am, quite simply, an objectively oriented critic, philosophically speaking, and that includes spiritually. i despise the idea of living in denial of reality; take it for what it really is and then do your best to try to improve it, constructively, which means peacefully; after all, violence does engender violence. realism is primordial for sane, sound, intelligent, caring, ... existance; although, maybe it is true that it is sometimes better to not speak too much truth. saying too much of the truth can also engender violence, which, in turn, will do as violence does, engender more. however, i certainly hope that views such as mine would not lead to such grotesque consequences.

p.sx3. vote for Peace, Healthy Environments, ... Organic Farming, i.e., LIFE.

...

I first heard about this earlier on the O'Reilly Factor tonight on FOXnews. I usually agree with Bill with his views on the subjects he talks about. But this one was crazy. I was shocked!! I was also shocked at how many people thought the judges were crazy. Including Bush!! And about how everyone is certain that this will be overturned. The judges seem to be the only intelligent ones in this situation. I'm sick of our goverment CONSTANTLY throwing around God. "In God we trust" How many times Bush brings up God and how we all need to pray and crap like that. I'm athiest and I have no problem with religion in America. The fact that in America we are free to believe in what we want to is what makes this such a great country. But forcing people who are athiest or believe in another God altogether in this "One nation under God" crap is getting pretty old. We all don't believe in God. And having to use our money with the words printed on it, and having to say it in school, and having to listen to Bush bring it up in practically every speech CLEARLY goes against "the separation of church and state" When I was in grade school, we were forced to sing the pledge, everyday. We couldn't start singing until everyone was up and hand over heart. I don't have a problem with the pledge or America, I love our freedoms. But making us be a "nation under god" is taking away the people's right to their own religion, and it's not right. The judges need a raise.

Visit the Basement

"Seperation of Church and State" does NOT appear in the Constitution. Might remember that.

Neither does God appear in the Constitution. There is no mention of God, or a Creator anywhere in that document.

Shelly

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Which does not call for the seperation of church and state, only that there cannot be an official religion.

But that clause is what is generally referred to with the unofficial title of "Separation of Church and State". Congress should have never passed a law having anything to do with the word "God" just like they wouldn't think about passing it with the word "Goddess" instead.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

I suggest you read the post where I quote a lawyer regarding this. Congress obviously can make their own choices, since they represent the people. And the Supreme Court will make the decision (as they have before) on its constitutionality. I think you will find the Supreme Court will disagree with you.

It doesn't mean they are correct, many are blinded to justice by their religious beliefs. I suggest the SC put Congress, the Americans complaining about the ruling and themselves to my "Goddess" test. If they are unwilling to use the word "Goddess" in the pledge then they must be looking at the word "God" as being religious.
I notice that everyone who is complaining about the ruling here is avoiding that hypothetical. I wonder why?

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/

http://search.dogpile.com/texis/search?q=colonial+religion+&geo=no&fs=web

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/blfaq_cs_myth_index.htm

http://atheism.about.com/?once=true&

http://atheism.about.com/library/world/bl_europe.htm?iam=dpile_1&terms=religion+of+the+new+world+settelers






PC911Racing The Gazette BBT Dubbers

Vitalt

Useful Team Info

This is a general response and not specific to any one message. My 2 cents.

You are absolutely correct in that you do not have to say Under God.

My workplace, school or civic club can tell me that there is no specific time or place to say the pledge and if it is said that it is the older version that does not have "under God" in it but they can't stop me from still saying "under God" at the appropriate spot in the pledge.

Therefore, I will continue to say it even if it is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (on appeal). I would assume that my First Amendment rights including freedom of speech allow me to say this phrase when and where I want to.

I believe in God but am not a church going person. I believe you have the right to say or not say something (Freedom of Speech), watch a show or not watch it (censorship), and have an abortion if you want. But I also believe that I have the same rights as you or anyone else to do what I want as long as it does not violate a LAW.

I was wondering though, with separation of church and state, do they still request witnesses in Court to say "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God" or did they strike that down.

As far as the money goes, I don't have any (just gave my last 2 cents)so I can't tell you if it says "In God We Trust" but anyone here can send me their money and I will inspect every bill and get it back to them...so help me God...oops, should not have said that...


Pete
_____________________________
850mhz Duron, 768 mg RAM, 30gb HD, Outpost Pro Firewall, cable modem and W2K

Thanks,

Pete
_____________________________
Intel D865GBF Motherboard, Intel P4 3.0 GHz CPU, 1GB DDR400, 160 and 120 Maxtor HDs, Radeon 9200SE Video Card, Pioneer A107D Burner, LG DVD-ROM, Verizon FIOS, XP Pro, Agnitum Outpost Pro Firewall and AVG Antivir

Actually, the discussion does not revolve around an individuals right to invoke God in speech or prayer, but whether the government has the right to mandate(legislate)the introduction of God into secular affairs.

I too believe in God, though my view of God may differ from how others view the concept. But I wonder what the reaction of the people protesting yesterdays decision might be if the word Allah was substituted for the word God, in the Pledge. The words mean the same entity, as does Jehovah or Yahweh, or a dozen other words in different monotheistic cultures.

Beware the tyranny of the majority, for the majority can change. In other words, be careful what you wish for...you just might get it.

Meanwhile, the man who filed the suit challenging the Pledge, has been receiving death threats to himself and his family from some of those God loving people out there since the decision was announced.

Shelly

We think alike, Shelly.

bobbo

Why stay with monotheistic? One nation, under Athena.

Hmmm, death threats? Madeline Murray-O'Hare all over again. Problem with these "God loving people" is they don't generally make idle threats.

There is a reason why the First Amendment is there.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

I find it fascinating that so much emphasis is placed on such things as "well, the founding fathers said this" or "the founding fathers would have wanted this" and other such nonsense.

Just because something was once interpreted in a certain way does not mean it should always be seen as such. Hanging on to such ideas will never allow a society to make any true progress. Instead they are slaves to a document conceived for an entirely different time and purpose. That isn't to say most of the Constitution is pretty good stuff, and thankfully one of its provisions is we are able to ammend it, albeit on a rather infrequent basis.

When you gain some further understanding if history and political science, you will appreciate that a fundamental foundation of a civilized society is social stability, which is based upon precedent. The brilliant men, who by stroke of good fortune were available in one place and at one time, put forth a blueprint for a society that had never been seen in human history. Few of them had any real confidence that what they had created could endure. For over two centuries, the citizens of our country have had ample opportunity to change their concept of government, and for the most part have thankfully resisted the urge.

Many nations are not as fortunate, and change their form of government everytime some group accumulates sufficient ammunition to impose their will upon the rest of their population. Our system was carefully crafted to reflect the will of the people, while at the same time reigning in the tyranny of the majority at any given time.
Although we can amend the Constitution, it is deliberately made a difficult process in order to prevent the passions of the moment to result in imprudent change. With the exception of the 18th amendment (later repealed) that process has been vindicated.

The plan of the founding fathers has been proven by time and circumstance. It is wise that we tread lightly when we contemplate changes. The constitution has never held this country back, it has endured because it has worked. What would you put in its place that is better? I for one, would sooner contemplate editing the Ten Commandments, they have stood the test of even more time, and have not lost their value. If we survive, the foresight of the founding fathers will be as valid a thousand years from now as it was two hundred years ago and still is today. Hundreds of amendments to the Constitution have been proposed, but only 17 have been passed since the original Bill of Rights, and two of them canceled each other.

Shelly

Just a minor correction Shelly, there have been 27 amendments. Minus the 10 in the Bill of Rights and the two that cancel each other out -- the 18th which passed in 1919 enacting Prohibition and the 21st enacted in 1933 which ended Prohibition -- that comes to 15 amendments. Still, even counting the two "cancelling amendments", that's over 12.6 years per Amendment. Not bad at all considering the sweeping changes that some governments go through in 12 years.

Many other nations are based on royalty, which has been a tradition that has been handed down through the generations. The U.S. is not based on royalty, and properly so, since that's what the Revolutionaries fought against. The U.S. is based on what the founding fathers put forth, which was a democratic nation, able to change.

JP

Shelly,

I understand what you are saying and agree that the government can't force you to do something that is against your religion or lack of a particular religious belief. (Of course, my religion does not believe that the IRS code, particullarly paying taxes, is constitutional but we haven't had much luck in getting that ruling in our favor )

I also don't care much for the extreme right wing (I have to admit that I am somewhere between center and right) but some of these Judges are SO liberal that they make me look far right and that is not the case). I also don't believe that they represent the majority.

What will happen when this item appears on a ballot and does get the support and becomes law. I don't always agree with the majority (I like to think that I have my own mind) but I abide by the rules that the majority sets and not what a few Judges determine. I would rather see it voted on by the people as in a true Democracy (I know, we are a Republic and elect someone to represent our vote, yea right).

But I do feel sorry for the gentleman and more so for his family. There is no need to harm an individual only because of their faith, whether that be Muslim, Hebrew, Agnostic, Druid, etc. and because they stood up for that belief. I thought I saw that his daughter was around 8 or so or in eighth grade, she may have told dad that the school was violating her constitutional rights to be an atheist by mandating the pledge as it is but somehow I doubt that. Of course, the gentleman who initiated the lawsuit could have also told his daughter, "When they get to the words 'under God' DON'T SAY THEM"...

Pete
_____________________________
850mhz Duron, 768 mg RAM, 30gb HD, Outpost Pro Firewall, cable modem and W2K

Thanks,

Pete
_____________________________
Intel D865GBF Motherboard, Intel P4 3.0 GHz CPU, 1GB DDR400, 160 and 120 Maxtor HDs, Radeon 9200SE Video Card, Pioneer A107D Burner, LG DVD-ROM, Verizon FIOS, XP Pro, Agnitum Outpost Pro Firewall and AVG Antivir

>>I thought I saw that his daughter was around 8 or so or in eighth >>grade, she may have told dad that the school was violating her >>constitutional rights to be an atheist by mandating the pledge as >>it is but somehow I doubt that. Of course, the gentleman who >>initiated the lawsuit could have also told his daughter, "When >>they get to the words 'under G-d' DON'T SAY THEM"...

There ya go! That is the best option. Yes, I agree with people that the government is for the people. However, in my opinion (and everyone has their own) Changes are made FAR TOO OFTEN to reflect the minority. Simple Fact: Majority of people (world wide) belive in a Supreme being. Another Simple FacT: (well maybe not fact but again my opinion.) Majority of the people in this country belive in G-d. I think our court system has major problems when they are considering issues like this... More and more laws.. hmm sounds like a police state rather then a free country.

People are always contesting religion in schools.. However, it never fails.. every christmas.. all schools are decorated for christmas...and no other religion. Now, being I am Jewish, that had a tendancy to make me a bit mad. But what did I do?? Did I fuss and go to court to make the school take that stuff down?? Heck NO!! I did the responsible thing, and brought it to the attention to the powers that be that they need to include other believes (not suppress the majority because the minority dissaproves,) and added decorations for Hanukkah, and even other religions!

The problem today is noone takes responsibility for their own actions. (Lady orders coffee on a McDonalds Drive thru.. spills it on herself.. takes McD's to court and somehow wins!!! Ordering hot coffee in a car, then blaming the store for selling you HOT coffee??? what is that? Just who do people think they are... You have to be careful these days.. otherwise you might find yourself in court for giving someone the birdie!!!

It shall be interesting to read the replies I get on this message.

ems4u2

I don't know where you live, but you'll not find any Christmas decorations in the public schools around here. Or any mention of the holiday, in fact.

When I went to high school there was always Christmas decorating going on. Once they decided to "include" Chanukah and so hung some Jewish stars and menorahs from the Christmas tree. That offended me more than not including anything for Chanukah at all. I complained and the decorations were removed.

>>When I went to high school there was always Christmas decorating >>going on. Once they decided to "include" Chanukah and so hung some >>Jewish stars and menorahs from the Christmas tree. That offended >>me more than not including anything for Chanukah at all. I >>complained and the decorations were removed.

Good point. However, I was involved in the decorations.

ems4u2

Hmm. I lived in NJ, and now in VA. In my opinion, it will never be banned from schools in VA because this is the "Bible Belt"

ems4u2

When I first heard of this, I was appalled. I'm a bit of a traditionalist and it really irks me that we are constantly forced to surrender aspects of our culture because of a few self important megalomaniacs out to make the world yield to their will. From a Christian perspective though, I feel that while the inclusion of "one nation under God" may have meaning to me and others that share my beliefs, it is a hypocrisy to others and coming from the lips of an athiest, is meaningless to God as well, I imagine. I for one, on those few occasions that I salute the flag, will continue to include the phrase. That's my right. Those around me are free to do as they please.

Noonie

Whats the big deal about the use of the term "God",your god could be,money,sex,booze,a tree,a rock a river,land,or in the atheist case,nothing!
LL

So you won't have a problem with it if they change the Pledge to say, "Under Goddess"?

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

How about if that is what you choose to say?

"Goddess" is not a word which encompasses a category..a general useage word; "god" is. That's linguistics, not law, or religion.

"How about if that is what you choose to say?"

If they would make it what you choose to say I don't see how anyone could complain, but I'm sure someone would.
If it's what one chooses to say then they should change the law to word the Pledge as "one nation, under *insert word of your choice*,...".

So why not word the law to tell others to say what I want it to say? Then they can be the ones who add/remove things as they choose. Since the suggestion is for others to get over it, those making the suggestion should be OK with applying that to themselves. Although I'm thinking that shoe doesn't fit so well when they try it on their own foot.

"God" doesn't encompass a category. "Deity" covers a category. God further defines within that category. Language changes but that's still how things are defined in my '94 dictionary. I've got a '00 dictionary around here someplace I could look it up in if you really think it's changed.
There has been a religion in majority power for so long that many may think that "God" defines a whole category. To them that would be true because God is their whole category. But this isn't a majority rule country.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

I think you need to get a better dictionary.

Let me know when you write it

My newer computer dictionary has the same definitions and it is put out by a different publisher.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Try a dictionary that gives you the roots and linguistics uses of the word in a comprehensive manner as well as examples of the word used in each meaning/word form.

Are the other items in the Pledge of Allegiance such as
"one nation" and "liberty and justice for all" unconstitutional
as well? But of course we don't want to be ridiculous about this
do we?
Aelarson

aelarson

I think these minoritys who are always complaining about this or that,just have to much time on their hands.
You cant please everyone,so why not stick with the majority.
Deal with it.

In memory of Whipat and Tuff

I suggest we all re-read post # 50 (with post # 53 noted). Then, after we have re-read it,.....read it again, and again.

OrchidBill

I had always interpreted the 'under God' phrase as to give us a set of standards to follow, seeing as God is different to everyone. i can see where legally we can't make folks swear to a religion, but could we insert another ideal instead? like maybe the Boy Scout Oath

Ok God really doesnt have much to do with school. God is in the heart. I pray in the privacy of my own home. Not in school lol. on the american money it says "In God we trust" what does God have to do with money?


Denise
North Van Canoe Club http://www.northvancanoeclub.com

Billys24

So, next they'll have to change the wording on the dollar bill

Louis

HMMMM? The Declaration of Independence does contain words referring to our Creator. Can we have it declared unconstitutional and all of us thereby becoming citizens of England again?

BY JOVE!

Bill K.

The words it uses is "Nature's God" which is a Deist term. In that aspect it is referring to Nature and laws of Nature. When it speaks of a Creator it says "their Creator", whoever they may claim holds that position in "their" life. It doesn't force a God onto anyone.

The Declaration of Independence was made before this country became a country. It is not a document with any power. It is just part of the history of this country. Nobody is compelled to recite the Declaration of Independence either by law or peer pressure.

It's easy to make a claim when taking things out of context but not so easy when you put things into context. This is much similar to looking at the "under God", who put it there and the context of the event.

I'm sorry you feel that it's your constitutional right to force a religious belief onto everyone but that is not the way things work.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

"Nobody is compelled to recite the Declaration of Independence..."

That is true, Myk. But it is such a beautiful document, that I have made a point of reading it nearly every July 4th for over 50 years.

Shelly

yep, makes sense, i see the point. everybody does have the freedom to choose a religion or lack thereof.

I think that the Judge is saying that students shouldn't be forced to say that they believe in God, contrary to their individual belief. The option of not participating in the pledge would be considered intimidation. The judge is absolutely right.

politically correct????
just another way to say
he wears his rectum for a neckti

DOM