Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional


Attack Dog

Attack Dog

Well-Known Member
By DAVID KRAVETS
.c The Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO (June 26) - For the first time ever, a federal appeals court declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional Wednesday because of the words ''under God'' added by Congress in 1954.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the phrase amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which requires a separation of church and state.

''A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion,'' Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel.

The appeals said that when President Eisenhower signed the legislation inserting ''under God'' after the words ''one nation,'' he wrote that ''millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.''

The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said students cannot hold religious invocations at graduations and cannot be compelled to recite the pledge. But when the pledge is recited in a classroom, a student who objects is confronted with an ''unacceptable choice between participating and protesting,'' the appeals court said.

''Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge,'' the court said.

The case was brought by Michael A. Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who objected because his second-grade daughter was required to recite the pledge at the Elk Grove school district. A federal judge dismissed his lawsuit, but the 9th Circuit ordered that the case proceed to trial.

''I'm an American citizen. I don't like my rights infringed upon by my government,'' he said in an interview. Newdow called the pledge a ''religious idea that certain people don't agree with.''

The government had argued that the religious content of ''one nation under God'' is minimal.

But the appeals court said that an atheist or a holder of certain non-Judeo-Christian beliefs could see it as an attempt to ''enforce a 'religious orthodoxy' of monotheism.''

AP-NY-06-26-02 1452EDT
 
Let's be real

When the framers created the Constitution a Bill of Rights was not included. In order to promote "harmony" among the states it was added (Unlike the Declaration, a uniamous vote was not needed to pass The Constitution). When they wrote about religion in the 1st amendment it was not freedom of religion, but freedom to follow Christianity as one saw fit.

The issue of separation of Church and State, was designed to "separate" the U.S. from the Monarchies of Europe. The differences in the practice of Christianity being the main cause of the vast majority of wars in Europe and the reason for the migrations to North America, particularly in the middle and New England colonies.

The majority of the founding founders were Freemasons and the City of Washington, D.C. was built on masonic principles. As a matter of fact, the masonic presence can seen all the way down to the money.

If you don't want to say The Pledge that's your business. But don't hide behind YOUR child to further YOUR cause, like Newdow admits he did. The guy said he was looking at a coin and came up with the idea.:(
 

Click here to visit HBCUSportsShop
Lifted from cnn.com

Outrage on Capitol Hill
In Washington, Sen. Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, called the court's decision "crazy" and "outrageous." If the case makes it to the Supreme Court, he predicted the appeal would not stand.

"This decision is so much out of the mainstream of thinking of Americans and the culture and values that we hold in America, that any Congressman that voted to take it out would be putting his tenure in Congress in jeopardy at the next election," Grassley said.

Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois said, "Obviously, the liberal court in San Francisco has gotten this one wrong."

Rep. Richard Gephardt, Democrat of Missouri, also blasted the court, saying the decision "doesn't make good sense to me."

"I think the decision is poorly thought out. That's why we have other courts to look at decisions like that. I hope it gets changed."







Play Fantasy Golf

CNN Showbuzz

The At-Work Tool!
 
AIGHT THEY TOOK PRAYER OUT OF THE SCHOOLS, NOW THE PLEDGE IS CONSIDERED UNCONSTUTITIONAL WHAT NEXT FREE LUNCH. THEY NEED TO FOCUS ON WHAT'S IMPORTANT, A QUALITY EDUCATION
 
Originally posted by JagsPride
WHat's next?? Money is unconstitutional?

In God we trust.
Click to expand...


Yeah it is funny how some people find anything to complain about. "Under God" has been in the constitution for years and now this atheist causes trouble.
 
Okay, that's enough for me.

This is way I'm about to do this.............



OH CANADA............MY NEW HOME IN 2008 OR SOONER!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry if this is unpatriotic here, but that's how I feel.
 
I guess if under God was not originally in there, it might be acceptable to take it out. But I think like everything else in the Constitution, people have completely missed the point of the seperation of Church and State.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top