phatman Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- For the first time ever, a federal appeals court declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional Wednesday because of the words "under God" added by Congress in 1954. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the phrase amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which requires a separation of church and state. "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel. The appeals said that when President Eisenhower signed the legislation inserting "under God" after the words "one nation," he wrote that "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said students cannot hold religious invocations at graduations and cannot be compelled to recite the pledge. But when the pledge is recited in a classroom, a student who objects is confronted with an "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting," the appeals court said. "Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge," the court said. The case was brought by Michael A. Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who objected because his second-grade daughter was required to recite the pledge at the Elk Grove school district. A federal judge dismissed his lawsuit, but the 9th Circuit ordered that the case proceed to trial. "I'm an American citizen. I don't like my rights infringed upon by my government," he said in an interview. Newdow called the pledge a "religious idea that certain people don't agree with." The government had argued that the religious content of "one nation under God" is minimal. But the appeals court said that an atheist or a holder of certain non-Judeo-Christian beliefs could see it as an attempt to "enforce a 'religious orthodoxy' of monotheism." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoke Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 Good. Maybe they'll redesign or abolish the penny next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr0ne Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 hehehe thats funny cuz like i remember freshman yr high school i was all anti everything, anti government and shit, and i'd refuse to even stand up for the pledge every morning. i had history first thing in the morning my socialist commie teacher never said anything, he actually thought it was pretty cool.....but then we got a sub one day she fucking FLIPPED like saying she was calling the cops to arrest me for treason and shit, tried to kick me out of class.....everyone in the class on my side too like "shut up bitch" and shit it was hilarious. damn i was a freak when i was a kid. :laugh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoozi8 Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 please the NRA quotes the constitution lots of things are out dated if you ask me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 and the nickel, dime, quarter, dollar bills...this politically acceptable nitpicking bullshit is FAR out of hand.When we can rule that one of our cornerstones of patriotism is unconstitutional, i think it's time i got in my car and started shooting lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
£ddie Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 I'm not even religious but this is a stupid decision. The Supreme Court will reverse this decision I'd bet. The ninth circuit has the worst record among federal courts of appeals for being reversed the Supreme Court. I don't think it will be any different in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatman Posted June 26 Author Report Share Posted June 26 I think this decision helps typify what's wrong with America - period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoke Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 Originally posted by cintron and the nickel, dime, quarter, dollar bills...this politically acceptable nitpicking bullshit is FAR out of hand.When we can rule that one of our cornerstones of patriotism is unconstitutional, i think it's time i got in my car and started shooting lawyers. It *is* unconstitutional... we're supposed to have separation of church and state, remember? Obviously that's complete bullshit, but in the name of maintaining some sort of pretense, I'm not opposed to removing references to the word "God" from schools and government documents (including money).It's not just about political correctness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 true, a separation of church and state is supposed to exist, but that rule was with us from the very beginning.And with that in mind they STILL put E Pluribus Unum on the currency and "In God We Trust" on the back.THAT passed through some legalities somehow, and made it, so it should stay. So far as the government is concerned, i don't think the pledge of allegience is unconstitutional at all. If you don't want to say it, don't say it. They should have left it at that.what i'm angry at is that we're paying taxpayer dollars so they can sit around and debate TWO FUCKING WORDS.people actually DISCUSSED THIS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr0ne Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 although i couldnt care less about the pledge, i disagree with the decision also. the same way you cannot be forced to stand up, you also cannot be forced to NOT stand up. people that feel "uncomfortable" with having other people express feelings of patriotism, even religion because its different from theirs have some serious issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xpander Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 Originally posted by cintron true, a separation of church and state is supposed to exist, but that rule was with us from the very beginning.And with that in mind they STILL put E Pluribus Unum on the currency and "In God We Trust" on the back.THAT passed through some legalities somehow, and made it, so it should stay. So far as the government is concerned, i don't think the pledge of allegience is unconstitutional at all. If you don't want to say it, don't say it. They should have left it at that. But also keep in mind that the whole "God" addition came around at the HEIGHT of the McCarthy era. The pledge, the money, all the god additions came during the big commie scare.As an agnostic, I could care less about the constitutionality of the pledge. Better to either leave it alone or just take out the god part. But it does hold quite a bit of significance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoke Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 Originally posted by cintron THAT passed through some legalities somehow, and made it, so it should stay.By that argument, no law should ever be overturned. Are you sure you want to argue that?Originally posted by cintron If you don't want to say it, don't say it. They should have left it at that. Along the same lines, when schools had prayer, you had the option not to pray. However, its purpose was well understood... it was there for Christians to take advantage of. Similarly, "one nation under God" was written by a Christian and caters to Christian sensibilities.I repeat: separation of church and state.This isn't the sort of thing that I go around rambling about, but do like to see rulings like this because I see them as an advancement toward a less hypocritical government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotcheme Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 Originally posted by cintron true, a separation of church and state is supposed to exist, but that rule was with us from the very beginning.And with that in mind they STILL put E Pluribus Unum on the currency and "In God We Trust" on the back.THAT passed through some legalities somehow, and made it, so it should stay. So far as the government is concerned, i don't think the pledge of allegience is unconstitutional at all. If you don't want to say it, don't say it. They should have left it at that.what i'm angry at is that we're paying taxpayer dollars so they can sit around and debate TWO FUCKING WORDS.people actually DISCUSSED THIS. well said, cintron.but i kinda like that ruled that way. i always skipped those words when i was little cause i don't beleive in god but now it is just another 2 words to me and i don't really care what they mean anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
£ddie Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 Separation of Church and state isn't absolute concept. If you read the cases concerning the Establishment Clause you'd know that. I just read the decision, and it flies in the face of established precedent. That's a fact. Let's not get overexcited about this. It's only an appeals court decision, and like I said, the ninth circuit gets it WRONG often. I really don't care about either side of the issue, just trying to give an objective unattached view of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsb2002 Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 the difficult fact for the gov is that the pledge without "in god we trust" was around for a long time but ammended in the 50's specifically to add that part. therefore, the direct, obvious purpose of that move was to implicate religion in something that was purely secular beforehand and put the weight of government behind a purely religious idea. that has nothing to do with patriotism and everything to do with "the establishment of religion" that the 1st amendment prohibits.as for the peer pressure thing, we are dealing with small school children here, so the pressure is significant, even if grown people would have no trouble objecting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 well as warm and fuzzy as the ruling may make some of you feel, let's face it. a.) you aren't in any position where you're required to say the pledge of allegience. We're all grown ups now.b.) Kids in school have more to worry about on their minds than if "Under God" is going to be included in a pledge that they have the option of not saying anyway. (or they could just *gasp* think for themselves and omit it?)c.) Think of the salaries paid to the lawyers, assistants, secretaries and clerks who worked overtime, all the work lost and the money poured into this case (which mind you still isn't closed), and THEN think about the starving people on the street, people who are getting screwed by medicare and people who are trying hard to make their way up.Tell me you'd rather see a group of lawyers arguing in a courtroom about TWO words, instead of putting the funding towards this case into helping someone not starve themselves to death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeg Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 i agree god has no place on my currency or in my mouth... but the fact that the rediculous percentage thats taken out of my paycheck is paying for these tools to quarrell about this is what irks me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeg Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 Originally posted by cintron well as warm and fuzzy as the ruling may make some of you feel, let's face it. a.) you aren't in any position where you're required to say the pledge of allegience. We're all grown ups now.b.) Kids in school have more to worry about on their minds than if "Under God" is going to be included in a pledge that they have the option of not saying anyway. (or they could just *gasp* think for themselves and omit it?)c.) Think of the salaries paid to the lawyers, assistants, secretaries and clerks who worked overtime, all the work lost and the money poured into this case (which mind you still isn't closed), and THEN think about the starving people on the street, people who are getting screwed by medicare and people who are trying hard to make their way up.Tell me you'd rather see a group of lawyers arguing in a courtroom about TWO words, instead of putting the funding towards this case into helping someone not starve themselves to death. I've got TWO WORDS for all those lawyers, assistants, secretaries and clerks who are wasting my paycheck by the minute... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoke Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 The amount of money given to the lawyers in this case is miniscule compared to the amount of money that the government wastes on bullshit wars and programs every year. At least this ruling is conceptually sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeg Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 Originally posted by hoke The amount of money given to the lawyers in this case is miniscule compared to the amount of money that the government wastes on bullshit wars and programs every year. At least this ruling is conceptually sound. conceptually sound... but not functional/practical...i mean... ok... they win... this changes NOTHING for any of us... as the pledge is never said once you leave school.... and even when it was said, i doubt anyone was leaving school in tears because someone said "god"... but thats a lot of money spent... on NOTHING...its really all about gain per cost... and in this case... the gain is minimal, and the cost is high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoke Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 Like I said, it's an advancement toward a less hypocritical government. It's small, it may seem like overkill right now, but it's a small step in the right direction.We in this country have a tendency to disregard laws that don't have a large, immediate impact. One reason why Bush was elected was because of his tax refund (think about it -- which way would the balance have tipped otherwise?), but today most people surveyed don't even feel like the refund helped them all that much. We're going to see the same thing with alternate fuels; government is choosing to preserve the immediate economy at the cost of greater damage down the road.So bring on the petty laws, I say... enough insignificant but conceptually sound rulings like this one may eventually pave the way for a more significant ruling, and we'll be able to look back on "the two words that started it all." (Okay, maybe that's a little dramatic, but I hope you get my point.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeg Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 Originally posted by hoke Like I said, it's an advancement toward a less hypocritical government. It's small, it may seem like overkill right now, but it's a small step in the right direction.We in this country have a tendency to disregard laws that don't have a large, immediate impact. One reason why Bush was elected was because of his tax refund (think about it -- which way would the balance have tipped otherwise?), but today most people surveyed don't even feel like the refund helped them all that much. We're going to see the same thing with alternate fuels; government is choosing to preserve the immediate economy at the cost of greater damage down the road.So bring on the petty laws, I say... enough insignificant but conceptually sound rulings like this one may eventually pave the way for a more significant ruling, and we'll be able to look back on "the two words that started it all." (Okay, maybe that's a little dramatic, but I hope you get my point.) yeah, I see what you're saying...I don't disagree...I just think that that money could be used to...say.... cure cancer or something along those lines... every $ counts when it comes to research... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 and i will never give up the concept of dumping large amounts of fossil fuel into my engine to create LOTS OF HORSEPOWER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeg Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 Originally posted by cintron and i will never give up the concept of dumping large amounts of fossil fuel into my engine to create LOTS OF HORSEPOWER agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.