Court says flag pledge violates Constitution

[Osborn F Enready]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050914/...ghts_pledge_dc

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A California atheist who last year lost a Supreme Court fight to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance won an initial round on Wednesday to revive his cause in the courts.

"The court concludes that it is bound by the Ninth Circuit's previous determination that the school district's policy with regard to the pledge is an unconstitutional violation of the children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God," Judge Lawrence Karlton wrote.


So folks, how do you all feel about this?


I think it is a great ruling, and should be pushed to the Supreme Court.

The "Knights of Columbus", a group with religious affiliation, were responsible for the entering of the text "under God" in the pledge, and was just waiting to be challenged.

I am glad to see this being pushed further up the line.

Not that I have anything against Christians, but I feel this is one of the many "recognized" forms of religion that need to be cancelled out, that they have supported for a long time.

[lsbskins1]

If paranoid cold warriors had never added
"under God" to the pledge in the 50's, we would not even be having this debate. This was all about illustrating the difference between good, healthy, moral, Capitolism and evil, diseased, immoral "godless" communism. The issue was stupid at the time and is stupid and archaic now. The US existed for years without "under God" in the pledge, why do we need it now?

[phoenix_fire]

I think this guy needs to get a life. His custody of the child in question is tenuous at best and were all the tea in China mine I would stake it all on him not even caring about the religious persuasion of the child nearly so much as he cares about publicly shouting his pet slogan. And I really like tea. Issues are one thing but idiots are quite another. I'm really tired of hearing from this guy.

On the other hand, I am a Christian. I do not say the pledge. I don't throw my allegiance behind the U.S. government in the name of God. Actually I find the uberpatriotic brand of american Christianity a little disturbing. I support the separation of church and state not because I think the Christian church is being unduly influential but because I think that Christians are to live as aliens. This is not my country. Not really.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: phoenix_fire I think that Christians are to live as aliens. This is not my country. Not really.

Yeeha! A brother!

Only one king...

[gr8fuldaniel]

Theres a poll at the bottom of the page, here: http://www.wb58tv.com/index.html

SURVEY Do you think it is unconstitutional for public school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it contains the words "under God"? Yes No Results

It was
78 No
22 Yes
Before I voted. A half hour later it was 75/25.
I voted Yes. Lets keep church/state separate.

[tinybear]

I voted "Yes". The USA is a secular state, right? :)

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050914/...ghts_pledge_dc "The court concludes that it is bound by the Ninth Circuit's previous determination that the school district's policy with regard to the pledge is an unconstitutional violation of the children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God," Judge Lawrence Karlton wrote.

Judge Lawrence Karlton is an imbecil. There is no way to define God, and/or its meaning. We just simply have no clue on God - regardless of religion, while few claim some extra-oridinary experiences that may point out to God's existance.

Science and technology can not provide any scientific answer to God's issue. It neither denies nor confirms God's existance. Theology-based explanations are not quite accurate. Anti-God's crusaders' - (Atheists) - fundamental altar states :
- give us a prove on God's existance
That is a quite weird statement, since anybody can answer with :
- give me a prove on God's non-existance

That is why Judge L.Karlton based his own decision on his own idea. That issue becomes "interesting", since judges should draw conclusions based on the applicable law.
Since there are people who believe in God and there are people who do not believe in God, a judge should give them all equal opportunity to express themselves, with all the rights and privileges upkept. It is impossible to satisfy all the people at the same time on the same issue.

My solution :
- find a school that represents your beliefs
- in case there is none, create your own one
Complaints ? To the God :-)))

Off Topic
The best way to keep the whole population busy :
- give people a subject so they can compete each other, not having time for the real issues.
That one guy keeps the whole nation busy on that religion-related leash, while Judges like Lawrence Karlton throws the next food-can into that pack, so they can prove "this" and "that".
That is the way a system works, guys.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Choice Votes Percentage of 56998 Votes Yes 4880 9% No 51605 91% Unsure 513 1%

Pretty popular poll, if you believe it went from 350 polled at 11:30 PM last night til 57,000 now (7:20 am). When I checked it again about midnight the yes votes were climbing 28%.
I suspect rigging.

[Chris]

I dont have a problem with them saying it, cause kids can opt out. Also though, like lebskins said, the christian commiephobes of the 50s made a lot of heartache on us all.

I also have no problem with them going in and modifying the pledge to take the words out back to what they were.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: |Chris| I dont have a problem with them saying it, cause kids can opt out.

And be labelled as heathens by their peers? I dont know if you noticed, but kids can be hard on each other. They can also be singled out by christo-fascist teachers who may judge a student on cult following rather than academics.
Christians can be evil.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050914/...ghts_pledge_dc SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A California atheist who last year lost a Supreme Court fight to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance won an initial round on Wednesday to revive his cause in the courts. "The court concludes that it is bound by the Ninth Circuit's previous determination that the school district's policy with regard to the pledge is an unconstitutional violation of the children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God," Judge Lawrence Karlton wrote. So folks, how do you all feel about this? I think it is a great ruling, and should be pushed to the Supreme Court. The "Knights of Columbus", a group with religious affiliation, were responsible for the entering of the text "under God" in the pledge, and was just waiting to be challenged. I am glad to see this being pushed further up the line. Not that I have anything against Christians, but I feel this is one of the many "recognized" forms of religion that need to be cancelled out, that they have supported for a long time.

it needs to stay, period, cause the next step is to try to remove any reference to God from the Constitution. the only way they could do that is to declare it unconstitutional.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel And be labelled as heathens by their peers? I dont know if you noticed, but kids can be hard on each other. They can also be singled out by christo-fascist teachers who may judge a student on cult following rather than academics. Christians can be evil.

they wont be judging by that if they are true christians, now i am only speaking of protestant denominations here so dont get you catholic boots on about catholics being so exclusive.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Besides, in truth, is this really One Nation Under God? Prove it. What is meant by "Under God"? That all people always obey him? Thats a lie from hell. Often the worst sinners claim to be "of God", even the president who is a mass murderer. I would say we are more under Satan than under God as long as we allow sinners to rule us.

[OberonDOtherseid]

People really need to get a grip. If the inclusion of "under God" is such a bother to them, why not just sit out the pledge altogether....or maybe just back away from the bong altogether until reality sets back in.

[Lilith]

Quote by: dthmstr254 they wont be judging by that if they are true christians, now i am only speaking of protestant denominations here so dont get you catholic boots on about catholics being so exclusive.

Don't most Protestant denoms believe that Catholics are pagans and idol worshipers? I find Catholicism quite fascianting myself. And really what does "Under God" really mean? I have always wonder that myself, does it set America apart or something? What's so special about us? I personally never have had a problem with the pledge...but then again I have never thought much about it. I may not be overly religious, but I'm not atheist either.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 it needs to stay, period, cause the next step is to try to remove any reference to God from the Constitution. the only way they could do that is to declare it unconstitutional.

LOL. Please be so kind as to point out the references to God in the Constitution.

There aren't any. But look for yourself.

[RickSp]

It is still unclear to me why we need a "loyalty oath" at all, and particularly why a loyalty oath to a flag. I suppose there are those too dim not to be struck by the irony of a loyalty oath to a peace of cloth that also proclaims liberty and justice for all.

[belverron]

Quote by: RickSp LOL. Please be so kind as to point out the references to God in the Constitution. There aren't any. But look for yourself.

Oh, I don't know. I think we need to call for an amendment to remove "...in the Year of Our Lord...."

[Sonart]

Quote by: Oberon People really need to get a grip. If the inclusion of "under God" is such a bother to them, why not just sit out the pledge altogether....or maybe just back away from the bong altogether until reality sets back in.

Better yet, why not simply return to the pledge that served American school children just fine for 60 years, before the red scare McCarthy Congress changed it in 1954. After all, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." and I can't think of a more aggregious violation of the 1st Amendment than Congress making a law establishing religion in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Quote by: dthmstr they wont be judging by that if they are true christians, now i am only speaking of protestant denominations here so dont get you catholic boots on about catholics being so exclusive.

:rolleyes: You have to be kidding me... devout protestant Christians are among the most judgemental, intolerant people I've ever met.



.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Sonart Better yet, why not simply return to the pledge that served American school children just fine for 60 years, before the red scare McCarthy Congress changed it in 1954. .

Why repeat a pledge at all? Why do a notionally free people have any business pledging allegience to a flag?

I do find it funny that the right wingers get so worked up defending a loyalty oath written by a committed socialist . The damned pledge wasn't written until 1891 and didn't take its current form until the 1920s with the "under God" line added in 1954 after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus.

So we have a socialist pledge modified by Catholics being defended stridently by fundamentalists. Odd.