Federal judge declares Pledge unconstitutional

Associated Press
Sept. 14, 2005 12:05 PM

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, where the plaintiffs' children attend.

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.

Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down from the Supreme Court in July.

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.

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

Funny, I never saw this law in any form under any juristiction; "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Damn liberal Christian-haters at it again. I agree, if you don't like it, don't say it. True aethiests are not the ones pushing this either. That is what gets me most. People who have money and want fame with friends at the ACLU.

I always thought the term "under god" was put in there by congress in the 50's.

Before then I think most Americans did not care what deity you swore to as long as you pledged loyalty.

/just sayin, continue to the "moral outrage" speeches ad nauseum

Interesting... I understand why the court threw it out last time (father didn't have legal custody). But now it looks like we have some parents who DO have custody.

One guy (atheist) does have a point when he says "Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and say, 'We are one nation that denies God exists,'" Newdow said. "I think that everybody would not be sitting here saying, 'Oh, what harm is that.' They'd be furious. And that's exactly what goes on against atheists. And it shouldn't."

The other interesting thing I see is the 4th Circuit saying "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."

So they aren't denying it has a religious phrase. In this case, why would they allow "under God" to be within it?

So...I never knew this...

The pledge was written by Francis Bellamy.

AND...he was a CHRISTIAN SOCIALIST!

A christian who did NOT put "Under God" in it and was a socialist!

OH the irony!

To add...

"Under God" was added in '54. Who led the campaign to put it in there?

uh...a little group called the Knights of Columbus.

Y'all do know who they are, right?

People like that give athiests like me a bad name. I dont care if you think you are God, as long as I get to think you are not and you don't tell me I have to belive you. Are people this bored that they nit-pick little things and make a fuss over them? Don't they have jobs and social lives?

You know, I don't get it. These people have serious issues with the phrase "under God" in the pledge, yet I'm willing to bet that they have "In God We Trust" on them most of the time. I'm betting the US Treasury isn't willing to change the engraving plates so easily. Why don't these people protest by filing those offensive words off their coins?

It's ironic that this ruling came out today, cause my wife and I were planning on bring this issue up with the principal at my kids school during a PTA meeting tomorrow.
I was amazed, when on his first day of school two weeks ago, they have all the kids recite the pledge every morning. Needless to say, I was a tad bit disappointed in my school of choice. Considering the courts ruling, I remain hopeful that the principal will discontinue this practice; especially in the city where the ruling came from!

Let's change it "Many nations, under one governemt".

I'd like them to change the Motto back to what the founding fathers made it.

Dump "In God We Trust".

Bring back "E Pluribus Unum."

Seriously, don't people have better things to do? I'm so sick of these cases, both on the left and the right. So it says "under God." Big fricken deal. Most kids don't even listen to what they're saying. I know I didn't pay attention when I was in third grade. It was just one of those things that started the day out.

And on the right, I could care less if you have a big honkin statue of the ten commandments in the front yard of a courthouse. Just don't get pissed off when a muslim wants to put a big honkin statue of the Koran right next to it. Or a Buddhist wants to put a big statue of Buddha next to it.

I would, however, draw the line if a Wiccan wanted to put a big honkin statue of Mother Nature's Vagina out there. Espically if it leaked every twenty eight days.

Eww...just.....eww.

I could give two squirts of piss what you want to put out there. Just let me pay the traffic ticket and get the fuck out.

Here we go again. A Democrat appointed (Jimmy Carter) federal judge pulls shit out of his ass on an identical case that was already decided.

In the previous decision .......the Supreme Court reversed the lower Court (the radical 9th Circuit) and essentailly concluded that the 9th Circuit should never have heard the case and that it should never have reached it's conclusion regarding the constitutionality of the Pledge.

This asshole judge Karlton used the previous 9th Circuit ruling as precedent. The Supreme Court blew that away in it's last ruling. It cannot be used as precendent for current cases such as this one.

Bottom line, a new 9th Circuit panel will have to hear the case. At minimum it should be thrown back to federal district court because Karlton's ruling was based on false precedent.

It could also be reversed at the 9th Circuit level. Who knows with all the radicals on that court. At worst it will go to the Supreme Court with newly appointed justices.

This case is not likely of any success.

Also consider the fact that the words "under God" have never been ruled by the Supremes to be in violation of the the Establishment Clause.

News like this is good at a time when new Supreme Court Justices are being decided. The majority of the public doesn't like rulings like this and this will most likely make it easier for more conservative justices to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

It's good for conservatives when the public is angry at the judiciary when new Supreme Court justices are being confirmed.

The leftist asshole Newdow may have done conseratives a big favor with the timing of this bit of news.

It's a good thing the funds for this weren't diverted to some porkbarrel bullsh!t like Katrina relief!!

Well...it's still not half as disturbing as that time you pulled a gerbil out of yours....

What funds? :rolleyes:

I suppose technically this lawsuit has merit. After all, atheists have rights and I can understand that a "devout atheist" would be pissed to have his child in a class where "under God" was chanted, ... even though no child is forced to say it. Subliminally the child is being taught there is a god. However I suspect the guy who filed this lawsuit is only interested in publicity.

I think the Supreme Court will keep "under God" in the pledge. If they uphold the ruling it will only be because it is an issue involving children. They might say "oh, the government can benignly say 'God' on adult matters like money and public buildings. But coercising children to say it a no-no".

...nah! Our conservative court will throw it out, kicking atheists and our constitution in the gonads. We'll then start seeing messages like "honk if you love Jesus" underneath traffic signs.

_Lazza

My humble opinion...

If you are religeous, you would see REMOVING the words as threatening, as if the government was separating church and state, rather than allowing a connection, and you would want the words kept in....

and - having to say every morning that you DIDN'T believe that your government was under God would be difficult....

and

If you are truly an atheist, you are not afraid of God hearing you say he exists or not, the words themselves should be meaningless, as if the Pledge made you say "One Nation, Under the Easter Bunny"...you may think its silly, but would not feel threatened by the general public's need to affirm this as part of a morning routine.

So - An atheist should not care, and a religeuos person would be threatened.

TJ, I agree with you but the issue at hand is the children of atheists .. and not the atheists themselves. Certainly adults who are atheists should simply do a :rolleyes: when the hear the term "under God". And the guy filing the lawsuit is being a wee bit anal.

No doubt you entirely correct about how religious people would view removal of "under God" from the pledge. They would be pissed off to no end and scream that the ACLU has taken over America. (..we should be so lucky )

_Lazza

Yikes!!!!!!!! I agree with Wilmac.

I have to go take a shower now, I feel dirty.

That is just it, the Supreme Court already ruled in favor of keeping "under God" in the pledge. I don't understand how a lesser court is able to overturn the Supreme Court. It isn't supposed to work that way, yet we citizens allow it.

I used to get really wound up defending people's rights to NOT say "under God" in the pledge, let alone my right NOT to say the pledge or sing the national anthem.

And then I got a life.

If you're atheist and don't want your kid thinking there really is a God, fine. Take it into your own hands to teach your kid that. Otherwise, get over it. You're living in a nation whose populace is probably more Christian than not, being governed by people who are probably more Christian than not. Christian morals/principals/sayings are gonna leak themselves into official documents/pledges/etc.

If you don't like it, you can move.

Makes me laugh as an outsider how wound up everyone gets here in the US about this subject.

All I can say is. Whomever the idiot is who is lodging this complaint, someone should take all of his money away, because he obviously can't spend it with 'In God we Trust' written on it.

If he ever wins this battle I'm sure that will be his next one. Removing mention of God from our currency too. Some religous psycho needs to just shoot this guy and do us all a favor.

No, because then the liberal press and Wilmac will go on record and blame it on Bush. I'd much rather just see him choke to death on tofu.

In Iraq, and other predominantly Muslim countries, they feel as we do, that they WANT God in their government, they WANT the laws to reflect their religeous beliefs, and they WANT those who are opposed to this religeous government to respect the religeous authority of the government to require adherance to the law.

The USA is the same as far as the sentiment goes...its just a question of degree, and the majority feel that the dissenting minorities should just realize that they live in a Christian society, and that Christmas and other public displays of the religeon, etc...are an important part of their lives, and to say that they can't have a Christmas Party is just being spiteful...

...And atheists are in the weird position of being opposed to their children being taught things that the parents do not believe in...

Much like as some religeous people are opposed to their children being taught evolution rather than biblical creation in the same situation.

Same situation, opposite sides of the fence.

I say take the UG out.

That, however, will not end the fight. The extreme left will try to eliminate the pledge completely.

Since the extreme left is for all intent the voice of the democratic party, this will serve to alienate the majority of voters against them even further.

I'm an Athiest, yet I grew up Christian, Married into a Cathloic family and am now studying Judaism at a Jewish temple. Just because you don't believe in God, doesn't mean that you shouldn't learn other peoples beliefs. If your kids go around not learning about religion just because their folks are Athiest, they'll be a real dumbass in real life and not understand others beliefs. A well rounded education simply has to contain some religion.

So religion in education should be required?

It's not the same. Not the same at all.

There are problems in Muslim countries because Islam is not only a religion. It is also a political system.

The guy's name is Michael Newdow. He is a guy with both a Medical and a Law degree (maybe he did that so he could handle his own malpractice suits).

Anyway... He doesn't really practice medicine anymore. He is a professional litigant. For years he has been filing lawsuits about the Pledge and other atheist related things against the government. His wife left him years ago because of his professional full time activism. His daughter whom he uses in these suits is not an atheist. He doesn't even have custody of her.

In this suit he uses two unnamed people because he cannot use his daughter anymore because he doesn't have the right to sue on her behalf.

I wouldn't get too upset about this case. It is doomed. The Jimmy Carter appointed judge based his decision and cited judicial precedent on a 9th Circuit case that was struck down and dismissed by SCOTUS. This automatically gives a higher court a reason to dismiss this case. It will either happen in the appeals court or at the SCOTUS level again. It could however make it past the 9th Circuit again. It's an activist court, but SCOTUS will not ignore the reasons for this federal judge's decision and will use any excuse to throw it out.

That will leave Newdow back to square one again. He will file another lawsuit after he loses this one. You can count on it.

The Supreme Court has already decided in past cases that the pledge passes constitutional muster. Even Justice William Brennan agreed and he was a big liberal.

Because it is San Francisco....I have said it a thousand times, that place is its own country.

With all the political crap kids have to deal with in schools, mixed with the derision and travesties of pedagogy and junk food and violence and peer pressure and sex too soon and assorted other bullshit, I think I'll just home school the little fucker.

"Okay, Jack, here's the part where Daddy's supposed to teach you math, but since Daddy sucks at math.....you'll be reading......what is this.....Bukowski. Mmmm'kay?"

The 9th Circuit is NOT just San Francisco. It barely is, other than the main office being there. Nearly all the judges are from outside of the San Francisco area.

Only 3 active are in San Francisco (21 are outside the area).

Only 3 senior Judges are in San Francisco (20 are outside the area).

No - Not required as in schools 'Must' teach it. But a teacher shouldn't lose their job for telling school kids a Jesus story!

When I was in school, I sat through the Pledge, Not so Much that I was at the time an Atheist, just that I though it stupid to repeat something over and over and over and over..... I do think that "Under God" is totally unnecessary. Though I would not have gone so far as to sue to remove it, I agree with the merit of the case. Religion belongs in your own home, or your own church. God, though Non denominational, is a product of religion, and has not business in schools, in and way. When I played Football we were told to take a knee ( something Jews do not do, ever) and bow our heads when a prayer to Christ was offered up, to keep us safe... I was not offended by it though I did not participate in it, and I got no flak from the team, Probably because I was 6'3" and 178 as a freshman... I must say I am more concerned about the erosion of science classes and the "intelligent design" debate raging in the south now. I look at this case and it think it acts as a check to the Religious right who has gotten very active and bold in the Bush era, to say, the Constitution protects us ALL regardless of faith creed color culture, or Hopefully someday sexual orientation.

That's right...learning about other cultures and beliefs helps every one understand each other, and where each is coming from, etc...and allows tolerance.

Of course, making a catholic get bar mitzfa'd, or baptising a jew might be a bit different, as would making one say they believed in the other's religeon even if the beliefs conflicted their own...is different than learning about them.

Immersion techniques are proven to be effective teaching strategies, but the application in this case might be a problem...getting your nose pierced or a plate in your lip, etc...can be a bit much for a school system to try.



Teaching about each other is good...and should happen, as is teaching tolerence for the beliefs of others...and the fighting is over what that teaching should consist of...as some parents do not want their childen taught beliefs that conflict with their own...easier example...

Many teachers are democrats, many parents are republicans ...(This can be reversed if you wish...it works either way...)...kids come home from a current events discussion at school...with their teachers' political opinion...and the parents explode in a rage...

So some are upset the kid WAS told about the stork or santa claus being frauds, and some are upset that the kids were NOT told they were frauds.

Agreed. Is there any teacher that actually has been fired because of it? (Verifiable, that is).

I <3 you.

I think my POINT was that Islam WAS the political system...because that's the way the populationed there WANTED IT....



So - Its the same as US wanting OUR religeon to be part of our system...we want laws that allow religeon as part of our public lives...and we want those that DON'T want religeon as part of THEIR public lives to just accept that majority rules, and get over it.

Jesus H Fucking Christ people!

With all the shit hitting the fan in the world today, isn't there something better to argue about than whether or not somebody says god in the pledge of allegience. Ask the damn kids,I bet they don't give a crap, hell most of them make up different words anyways, just like we all did when we were kids

Sheesh.....

What exactly is the point of posting this? If you don't want to discuss it move on. Most of us here can handle thinking about more than one thing from day to day.

Fuckin Blow me, OK?

I got an opinion, I'll state it, If you don't like it, don't read it and move on...

Oh noes! He said blow me!

Of course I guess you weren't really asking a question when you said this:

Can some one let me know how to know if I want to read something, before I read it, so I'll know whether I want to read it?

I forget....what's "our" religion again?

I think the thing that people forget, a fundamental part of "our" political philosophy as Americans, is that our constitution is based on a respect and reverence for the rights of the individual, not the majority. Mob rule is not democracy. Although the "Under God" argument is a divisive non-issue to me, I must take exception to the reasoning that, because there are more Christians than non-Christians in this country (if there are), the rest of the nation should "just get over it." There have been lots of instances of injustice, far more disgusting and dishonorable that were widely practiced in this country, and this country would be a terrible place to live had the courts said, "Well, people like slavery, so I guess you have to be slaves. Sorry. Majority rules."
Constitutionality is not based on "hey, there's more of us than you, so shut the fuck up."

If you are really against this, then you are not a true aethiest. Enough said. Move on.

All hail the allmighty DOLLAR

"One nation , under Canada..."

"God Save the Queen"

Isn't that democracy ?

*sigh* Come back, Bill Watterson, come back . . .

I thought the point of democracy was, in fact, that majority rules? I mean, isn't that the point of voting and counting said votes?

That would be my assertion.

And to whomever said that hopefully sexual preference will be protected by the constitution...you're fucking nuts. There's too many protected groups already. We don't need to encourage more lawsuits on account of some gay guy who thinks he's being discriminated against, when in reality, his "preferences" just make everyone else sick.

Yeah , but two chicks is HOT!
Prefer away!

(see the NWS Fridays thread for a reference)

Ok...you got a point there....

Fuck it. I can have a double standard. Two chicks = hot. Two dudes = EWWWWWW.

No sh!t. The kids don't care.

Nobody even said whose god it refers to.

Can anybody tell me why the word "under" is a problem?

I seem to remember something from the 80's.......

I pledge allegiance to the flag,
Michael Jackson is a fag,
Pepsi-Cola burnt him up,
Now he's drinkin' 7-UP!

Yes, you're right, the majority of voters decides the outcome in a referendum (except in the case of the electoral college, of course), but doesn't decide the consitutionality of legislation. You don't elect your justices, and they are not (technically) beholden to any party or ideology. That's why federal judges can interfere in states' rights issues, and that's why illegal aliens still get to go to school and marijuana is still illegal. Because if it were up to the People to decide, like it or not, Prop 187 would be placed into law, and so would Prop 215.

My original point is that one of the great things about the Constitution is that it recognizes above all others the rights of the individual, as opposed to the needs of the majority. I realize that transgressions and travesties of justice have occurred and continue to occur that put a blight on our Justice system, but aside from that, the framework for equality is there, and the foundation of that framework is a reverence for the constitutionally recognized rights of the individual. It is to our benefit that we live in a republic and not a true democracy, for all our better intentions and jingoistic platitudes, we are inherently paranoid, angry, unjust, racist, bigoted, and murderous. Nobody seems to like it when the Constitution protects the Bad Guy of the Week. That's why it's there.

Except that we're NOT a Democracy. We're a Republic. That means that we elect people to stand up for us and be our collective voice in the government...not that whatever we vote is what we get.

The Founding Fathers didn't trust the "ignorant masses" enough to give us a full-on democracy.

Wilmac is correct.

Uh, huh. This is what makes you such a wonderful contribution to society. Head in the sand - complete ostritch. "It doesn't affect me, so why bother spending any time debating it?"

Beautiful....

Please DO pay the ticket and get THE FUCK OUT!

Where did that post go? Did an Admin delete it? It's disappeared...and man, some of the stuff I wrote in that thing was brilliant!!

I repeated the Pledge all through school and look how I turned out! Oh wait, I'm not a good example!



Um yeah, I just don't get what the big deal is. I guess some people just want to get attention or isolate their kids from the real world. They should just home school their little shits or something if it's that big of a deal.

I understand the importance of conformity to American society, so I wont object if my daughters school has the pledge, but if America is so great, why is it necessary to indoctrinate children on a daily basis ?

Because school is inherently acidic to conformity.

We threw in a deity in the 50's to prove that not only are we united by civil brotherhood but also by Christianity.

Which, well...were not.

I kinda think Ronald McDonald/Walmart’s Smilyface would be more appropriate unifier nowadays.

Just another reason to hate Liberals and their secretive actions:

Hate Crimes Act

I can't even gather some words to describe how pissed I am at this. I really wish I was this guys neighbor in Michigan.

Yeah, 'cause we should be able to beat the living shit out of them and get away with it because they are gay.

Why not? Why should beating the shit out of them because they are gay be any different from beating the shit out them because they are a drunken redneck?

Beating the shit out of someone just because they are whatever is retarded.

Hate crimes...I dunno... I agree they are pretty stupid.

So you would have no problem with someone beating the shit out of someone because they were standing on the corner preaching?

But then again...why is it that Bob Knight zeroes in just on the orientation part? He's not against the hate crime amendment. He's against orientation being put in it.

No Moby, I don't think I would find myself beating up anyone without just cause. I do not believe in hate crimes. Any time you beat someone up its because you hated them at that moment. It gets back to the special rights vs equal rights. Same darn thing as hate crimes. Any other we can please the left and their existence?

Hate crimes legislation is stupid. If you murder someone you didn't like them very much. Trying to add something to it based on motivation is wrong IMO.

Isn't that *sort* of what 1st degree is, as opposed to 2nd degree?

Not quite...but sort of.

Last time I read is that first degree murder is pre-meditated...not based on motivation...

I agree with the sociopath fundamentalist on this one.

Motivations are too subjective to try to add jail times. It allows the prosecution huge leaps in logic and nearly impossible to prove motivations are otherwise.

I think the real question is why are these "christian" groups so upset at this legislation? Why are so concerned in protecting people who beat to death gay people?

Funny, I never heard of them protecting criminals before, what make these criminals so spec...oh nevermind.

I'm an atheist. While I do have rights, I seem to understand these rights a little better than people dragging this into courtrooms.

And you religious people aren't any better for that matter. You idiots changed the name of the "Christmas Tree" at the White House to the "Holiday Tree" because Jews were offended. You spend more time nitpicking the different ways you worship the same friggin god...

The Constitution is simple. It says "freedom OF religion", not freedom FROM religion.

It means that we are all free to worship who we want and if you don't like it, fuck off. It doesn't say if you don't like it you change the names of things or change the words of things, or drag each and every little thing that you don't agree with into a courtroom.

It means that I'm free to do what I want, and you're free to do what you want. And if we don't like what each other is doing, to mind our own businesses and move the hell on.

I can agree with this.

Outstanding post, kingslayer.

The Under God part was added in the 50's to indoctrinate America against the "godless commies" in Russia whom we so feared back then as they developed nukes. It had its time, place, and purpose. It's two words. Big fricking deal. Only atheists should have any issue, as every other religion has a god of some sort (Allah is the stupid one )

I don't even think the Under God piece is what bothers me on this. It's the fact that some asshole chooses to litigate over this, wasting federal resources and costing the taxpayers money when we have so many more significant things to be concerned with.

This country's efforts to make everything so plain vanilla as not to offend anyone have just gone too far. Maybe it's time people toughen up a little bit and not get all butt hurt when they see something that bugs them a little bit.

It's my right of free speech to say under God or not on the pledge. Same goes for kids (even though they're not paying taxes).

Don't forget about this...

America the Beautiful

Uh yeah...that's where it says "ESTABLISHMENT of religion."

Courts and historians have agreed that 'establishment' means to endorse, sponsor, or otherwise favor any particular religion or religion itself.

Which pretty much means they never should have put Under God in there to begin with...

Either way, starting a court battle over it instead of just minding your own business is stupid.

I found atheism on my own. One of the things that made me despise religion is the fact that people push it on their children, then look down upon their children when their children don't follow that religion. This guy is doing the same with his atheism, which is wrong.

People should find their religion on their own.

One nation under god...ok and would you object to a Noctulius?

Just wondering.

That makes sense...if the symbol doesn't have meaning for you, and represents another's beliefs...you should be OK with that person displaying it....and yourself going with the flow to avoid wasting tax dollars on a court case, etc.

A pentagram, a cross, whatever...obviously the people who like crosses will tolerate pentagrams just like the people who like pentagrams tolerate crosses...fair is fair.

You pick your own religeon, follow it, and ignore the other religeons, as they are none of your business..

...and if the government adds a clause to the Pledge of Allegiance saying in Satan we Trust, or one nation under Zeus, you can tell your kids not to say it, because it means nothing to you...and if your kid is saying it, maybe to fit in, you know they don't believe it, because you taught them right.

No one is taking away your religeon...you just have to tolerate some meaningless words to go with the flow and avoid wasting tax dollars, etc.



Makes sense to me.

I consider myself agnostic. What do you see as the reason you are atheistic rather than agnostic?

I think I'm gonna sue to have a word removed that has been proven false over and over - "indivisible"

It's not just that. Imagine the difficulty of trying to get anything done if everyone is voting on it. Democracies don't work. A republic is the most effiecient way of getting things done, minus a dictatorship.

While I agree with your premise, Kingslayer, the Constitution actually says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise therefore."

Your point stands, though, as people trample the second half of that clause in effort to enfore their faulty interpretation of the first half.

I find it furthermore interesting that the idea of a "seperation between church and state" is only found in a letter from one of the founding fathers (Jefferson) and not in any of the documents they collectively agreed on.

Exactly.

Quote:

Either way, starting a court battle over it instead of just minding your own business is stupid.

But is it minding their own business? One could argue having it in the pledge is a "slippery slope" - look at all the attempts to get that joke of a thing, "Intelligent design" put into schools. Just like banning a type of gun is thought of as a slippery slope.

Do I think they will lead to those others? Not really. But some do.



I actually have never come across anyone like that, thankfully.

Too true.

You don't allow children to decide what is good for their body. A good parent limits the food their children eats to food that's nutirtious and healthy.

Do you expect it to be any different for the spiritual wellbeing of a child?

Not true.

Madison: The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State - Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history - Detached Memoranda, circa 1820

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity - Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821.

Arguably, Jefferson and Madison were two of the most imporant of the founding fathers, if not the two most important (after all, one wrote the Delcaration, the other is the "father" of the Constitution).

I'll be darned. Thank you for the correction.

One thing though... I don't recall those letters being agreed upon by the other signataries or being ratified by 2/3 of the states.

My point is that the Consitution was a consensus document AND it put forth a procedure to change it. A letter from either Madison or Jefferson, does not fufil that procedure.

True, the letters were not. But Madison was explaining what the First Amendment meant. And he's the one who wrote it - and it was based on the Virginia Statute, which Jefferson penned. Madison knew what the intent was, and explained it in those letters.

The interesting thing is that first Madison quote I listed. He says the "total separation of the Church from the state". NOT "total separation of the state from the Church." If anything, it seems, by that line, that he was more concerned about keeping the church out of the government.

The founding intentions were pretty clear...the separation is to prevent there from becoming a state religeon, such as was the case in England.

The messy part is where we draw the line...is Hamarabi's code or the 10 Commandments, as examples of early examples of law, on display at a court house, a religeous display, implying that these are official government stance on the involved issues?

If employees at a government office want to exchange X-mas presents at an office party, maybe have a tree and some greens...does that imply government involvement/endorsement?

Is the state denying the right of these employees to HAVE a X-mas party a violation of their religeous freedoms?

How does it make you feel if your son comes home and says that everyone in the class says a pledge of loyalty to the government that includes words that refer to another religeon, perhaps ending the pledge with "Praise Allah"...and he's the only one not saying it, and the other kids are looking at him funny and he feels uncomfortable being the only one to not say "Praise Allah".

What if the words were "There is no God"?

What if your kid felt funny being the only one who refused to say there was no God?

Would you complain to the BOE that they should not make the children say there is no God?

Is there a parallel?



Is this even IN the constitution?

I don't think so...I think we took the "No state religeon" concept and expanded it too far.

So - there may be other legal precidents and applicable laws to cover these shades of grey, but I'm not so sure that the constitution is the best venue.

TJ, totally right there. The separation of church and state was placed for exactly that reason. The problem is, the 'leaders' up on the hill have taken that idea and twisted it and pushed it to extremes. The idea was never created to take God out of school, or anything like that; it was created to keep the church from becoming a governmental entity.

I don't know about where you guys are, but where I live they are now starting to have a debate on whether they should teach the idea of creation in school along with the current curriculum of evolution. This seems wrong to me. It doesn't matter which side of the theological fence you're on, isn't it the best idea to teach our kids a good chunk of everything so they can make their own informed decisions? They've taken God out of everything because they think it might 'hurt' some of the poor kids that don't believe in God. What about the poor kids that do? They've gone all their lives doing things certain ways, and now they can't because it's not "PC"? It boggles me, how our government and standards can be so messed up sometimes...

On the other side of the fence though, we still have a lot more religious freedoms than are available in many other countries, so I guess we should still be thankful for that...

Wrong Moby. Jefferson didn't write the Constitution, he merely rewrote it so it was legitable. Alexander Hamilton actually wrote it.

Correct you are sirs. Well done.

Exactly!

Even atheists don't care about this bullshit.

The more time we waste on crap like this, the the less time we have to solve real, important problems facing our nation.

Um...you want to read that sentence again...

One wrote the declaration, the OTHER is the "father" of the Constitution.

Jefferson wrote the Declaration. The "other" is Madison.

Hamilton had nothing to do with the writing of the Declaration, and he had almost nothing to do with the writing of the Constitution.

Where did you learn your American History, anyway?

1. I don't think you can say that Jefferson intended us to seperate church from state to the extent we have. After all, he wrote that we were endowed by OUR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights (in the Declaration of Independance).

The modern (mis)inperpretation of "Seperation of church and state" is now attempting to exclude a the Dec. of Indep. from schools because it mentions God. Clearly we've misinturpreted what that founders intent. What's worse is we allowed our misinturpretation of the opinions of 2 founders to hijack the constitution.

2. I doubt that the other founding fathers would have agreed that Madison and Jefferson were the most important. I think its easy to tell who John Hancock thought was the most important.

Just a couple of things....

#1) What about MY rights? Do I, or don't I have the right to say "Under God"?

#2) See above.

#3) Will my right to do that be protected by the court system?

#4) I have the right to say the words, "Under God".

#5) Nobody but me has no ability or right to change #4.

Sorry if I missed the point, but, you know - others have practiced various religions in the US for years, and NOW it's a problem? I just don't get it. Make, pass, or rule on a subject like this - and it has NO affect on me. I'll keep doing what I have been doing all my life...practicing my faith in my own way.

I've never had a judge to dinner to discuss it, but if I did, I think he/she would say..."Yeah, go ahead, I can't keep you from doing it".

We (Christians) have been forced into the minority already...the court is just confirming that with this ruling. I'm comfortable being in the minority, since the majority always seems to get their shit manipulated.

I've gotten tired, so tired of this bullshit...whatever.

Why there was even a case brought to court to spend more tax money is beyond me.

I'm about at the point of giving up on this stupid shit.

[tongue-in-cheek] I'm sure this ruling will change the Country for the better, I really feel that this was VERY important, and that we should all just agree with it and get on with our lives [/tongue-in-cheek]

Spanky

Fuck off newbie! You have NO rights!

You smell like fish...did Ophelia just insert in you, bitch?

Actually, Jefferson would have the most likely of all of them to intend a complete separation. He openly mocked religion.

Quote:

The modern (mis)inperpretation of "Seperation of church and state" is now attempting to exclude a the Dec. of Indep. from schools because it mentions God.

The Declaration does not mention the Christian God. It mentions "Nature's God."

Regardless, technically speaking, the Declaration has absolutely no weight in our government. Once the Constitution was signed, the Declaration lost any authority (not that it really had any in the first place - all it said was the colonies were now independent).

Quote:

Clearly we've misinturpreted what that founders intent. What's worse is we allowed our misinturpretation of the opinions of 2 founders to hijack the constitution.

No, sorry. It's the Christian revisionists who are misinterpreting. The two founders CLEARLY stated what the intention was of the First Amendment.

Quote:

2. I doubt that the other founding fathers would have agreed that Madison and Jefferson were the most important. I think its easy to tell who John Hancock thought was the most important.

I would disagree. They chose Jefferson to write the Declaration. Madison, Jefferson, Franklin and Adams were the big ones - they are the ones who continued on in national roles (Franklin already had - he was perhaps the most respected of all of them).

NO rights of your's have been removed.

Quote:

#2) See above.

See above.

Quote:

#3) Will my right to do that be protected by the court system?

It has always been protect to say under God or pray or whatever. Nobody is taking any rights away from you to say whatever you want.

Quote:

#4) I have the right to say the words, "Under God".

Absolutely you do. That's never been questioned.

Quote:

#5) Nobody but me has no ability or right to change #4.

And nobody has tried to change #4.

Quote:

Sorry if I missed the point, but, you know - others have practiced various religions in the US for years, and NOW it's a problem?

We did fine without a mention of God in pretty much any government issue until it was put on money and the pledge.

Quote:

I just don't get it. Make, pass, or rule on a subject like this - and it has NO affect on me. I'll keep doing what I have been doing all my life...practicing my faith in my own way.

So why do you have a problem with it being removed from it should never have been in the first place?

Quote:

I've never had a judge to dinner to discuss it, but if I did, I think he/she would say..."Yeah, go ahead, I can't keep you from doing it".

See above. Nobody has tried to keep you from doing it.

Quote:

We (Christians) have been forced into the minority already

Bullshit. No rights have been removed.

Exactly my point - thanks. Why spew the verbal vomit (not you, directly, Mobycat) when everybody is going to do what ever they want to anyway?

Pass whatever law you want pertainting to my personal beliefs or mores...I'm not letting some man/woman dictate that by rule of law. If I do, I am living very precariously - leaving my core to the rule and law of people that I don't know, and those that do not know me.

Fight your fight...I'll do what I want (when it comes to this, anyway).

Spanky.

I don't entirely disagree. The fact that "under God" is in there...doesn't bother me personally. I couldn't care less. But I understand the view for wanting it out.

Jefferson said "endowed by their Creator (captial C) with unalienable rights". Nature can't endow rights.

Furthermore, this "Nature's Creator" entitles things to man (equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God (Capital G) entitled them.

Even if you don't believe he's talking about the Judeo/Christian God, you must admit he's talking about a creator - a being who created nature and endows man with rights.

Besides, if Jefferson openly mocked religion, it's interesting that when he wrote for the Continental Congress (aka the Dec of Independance), that he included God. Perhaps this shows the fact that he never could have convinced the rest of the fathers (or the states) to vote for something that didn't include God.

It keeps coming back to the fact that religion is protected by the Consitution (approved by the Constitutional convention and the states) and idea of the seperation of church and state was never mentioned in any document which required any more vlidation than a postage stamp.

Says you. Talk to some Native Americans or some Wiccan, or some Pagans (not making the two the same).

Quote:

Furthermore, this "Nature's Creator" entitles things to man (equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God (Capital G) entitled them.

Laws of nature? Seems like Nature CAN endow rights.

Quote:

Even if you don't believe he's talking about the Judeo/Christian God, you must admit he's talking about a creator - a being who created nature and endows man with rights.

Never said he didn't believe in a creator.

Quote:

Besides, if Jefferson openly mocked religion, it's interesting that when he wrote for the Continental Congress (aka the Dec of Independance), that he included God. Perhaps this shows the fact that he never could have convinced the rest of the fathers (or the states) to vote for something that didn't include God.

Interesting you should mention that. There was a motion to put Christianity in the Constitution. It was voted down.

Quote:

It keeps coming back to the fact that religion is protected by the Consitution (approved by the Constitutional convention and the states) and idea of the seperation of church and state was never mentioned in any document which required any more vlidation than a postage stamp.

But Madison, who wrote that First Amendment...he explained later what it meant. That much is clear.

Atheist and Agnostic are not that far apart in definition.

Atheist is "the belief there is no diety". Agnosttic is "one who is not committed to believing in either the existance or the nonexistance of a God".

In short, Atheists say there is no god, agnostics don't give a shit.

I personally don't believe in the existance of a god. I'm not one to base my life on the belief of something I've never seen.

No. But that wasn't exactly my point either.

Sure you can influence your child's religion, just as you can what is good for their body. But soon enough, they will grow up and find their own. How you react to that as a parent is the point.

If your child decides to become an atheist or an entirely different religion alltogether, then you shouldn't look down upon that child.

By all means teach your children religion. But at the same time teach them that there are other religions out there and the fact that it happens in this country is a GOOD thing. Not that it is a bad thing that must be destroyed by filing lawsuits.

Once again, lets clearly truthfully define this so-called "separartion of church and state". Its original intent was to keep government out of our religious choices. It meant that government could not say THIS IS your religion and that is the only choice you have. If you choose another, you will be prosecuted. That is the original intent. Liberals have taken it to extrememes, even saying the original intent was misinterpreted from the people that thought this up. Having the commandments in a court house is not the government forcing you into one religion. The Pledge with its "under God" is not forcing you into one religion.

Moby, you claim to know Jefferson, then you do know the truth. Now, is your liberal side able to admit it.

This, coming from someone who thought Hamilton wrote the Constitution and Jefferson rewrote it.

(Jefferson wasn't at the event, by the way...he was in France at the time.)

If you think you know the truth, then explain this first draft of the First Amendment from Madison:

The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases

Notice he says "in any manner nor on any pretext."

Notice he also says "No State shall."

Do you know WHY Jefferson wrote the letter to the Baptists? They wanted him to declare a day of fasting. He refused to.

I know enough about Jefferson and Madison to know what they meant.

You obviously don't.

[/qb][/QUOTE]The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases[/QB][/QUOTE]

My right to express my religion (Christian) is denied everywhere I go. Yet, so-called fame-seeking aethiests seem to have their will enacted upon and supported at every turn. Teaching Christian values never harmed anyone. Not teaching them has harmed countless. Whether you believe in God, whether you believe Jesus was the Son of Man is not my point. My point is our values work, and they work for everyone. An aethiest can be an aethiest in school. I cannot be a Christian in school. Meaning, a group of aethiests can meet in public school, discuss how much they hate Christians, and everything is fine. A group of Christians gather at the same school, during the same time, discuss their relationship with Jesus and the world goes ape-shit. Christians do not have the same rights as others. You are such a supporter of special rights, well then, where are ours.

Bullshit. Where?

Again, bullshit. You can be Christian all you want in school. The school cannot SPONSOR it, and they can't (or at least shouldn't be able to) sponsor an atheist group, either.

Edit to add - Bull Run Elementary School, which is about 5 miles from where I work...public school. On Sundays, a church uses it for services.

The church rents the school. It has nothing to do with the school. If a high school football team gets together on the field and prays, it is illegal. It is not school sponsored. The team is, but not the prayer, yet still illegal. There is your bullshit flag. Your argument only holds water when you put that spin on it. My argument holds water in reality.

Is the coach bringing them all together, or are they doing it on their own?

I like cornflakes!

Plus, this whole thing is making my urticaria flare up (Google it).

Anyway, can't we all just agree to disagree and move on to more important things, like...why is Madonna being bithed at in the UK?

Or...where is Kate Moss going to get her next line?

Probably from Keith Richards...

Just going to throw out a random quote I saw today.

Happiness cannot come from hatred or anger. Nobody can say, "Today I am happy because this morning I was very angry." On the contrary, people feel uneasy and sad and say, "Today I am not happy because I lost my temper this morning." Through kindness, whether at our own level or at the national and international level, through mutual understanding and through mutual respect, we will get peace, we will get happiness, and we will get genuine satisfaction.

-His Holiness the Dalai Lama

You liking your Subaru, you big ugly girl?

Why yes I am

I feel like a new woman. bwhahahahahaha