US Pledge ruled unconstitutional??? - Page 2

Seeks God · #16 Sep 14, '05, 12:34 pm

I think it would be a good idea to pray for Michael Newdowd...I'd hate to be responsible for turning people away from God.

My wife mentioned an interesting possibility: How long will it be before our own children sew us for 'forcing' them to believe in God?

I look at all this and then it makes me wonder why people prefer to send their children to private schools instead of public schools. But then again I believe our country was founded upon freedon OF religion and not upon freedom FROM religion...

SG

stellina · #17 Sep 14, '05, 12:45 pm

Newdow is a professional troublemaker. He got a lot of press off the same thing (different court case) a few years ago, and apparently he won't be happy until the Pledge is eliminated from public schools & probably any other public place. Therefore, he became something of a media darling - if he had been a crackpot of a conservative bent, nobody would have heard of him.

Whether one agrees with him or not, we should all worry that people like this are clogging the court system with frivolous lawsuits and diverting the energy & resources of the judicial system from far more important matters.

Forest-Pine · #18 Sep 14, '05, 1:11 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWM

Indeed. Quite how it *can* be argued that this keeps state and religion separate is beyond me.

My argument is that the framers of the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence and Constitution were overtly in favor of Christianity (specifically, Protestantism) permeating political life and doctrines. The concept of the removal of religion from the government was one they actively fought against.

Their concern was not a seperation of church and state, meaning religion never enters the government, but of a seperation of the Queen from heading both church and state. Nonetheless, several US states had state religions one had to support no matter what, and to be active in political life, one had to be a member of. They were not against religion, they were against Catholicism and high Protestants.

Just like there are entire countries that are Islamic countries (meaning the Islamic faith pervades their governmental life), this country was clearly founded as a Christian one.

The very reason people came here was to practice their faith! The governments were founded based on their religion!

The US is on a path in line with France's in the terms of making the state a secular one. I believe the saying goes that one is a Frenchman in public and a Christian/Moslem/Jew in private. You should not be able to distinguish the men of faith from each other out in public, to the point that they ban ANY religious paraphanalia from entering state supported institutions such as schools and courts and the water department and whatever else. (This means no cross necklaces, no hair coverings, no Star of David, etc) Germany is on a fast-track to the same, with an edict against Islamic headscarves now including nuns' habits. Taken to the extreme, they should not allow wedding rings: it is a symbol of a religious practice and belief.

My argument is that one cannot divorce faith from politics as faith is an all-encompassing world view. Further, to try to change America--commonly referred to as the Melting Pot, where all but the Native Americans started out as immigrants--into a cookie-cutter image goes against all that our country has come to be known for.

There is a reason that it is people of faith fighting against secularization and people lacking faith who fight so much for it.

How this all ties in with the pledge is that there is a difference between being a judge and your job being to rule on the adherance of people to the laws of the land, and being a law maker who helps shape the laws of the land.

It is not wrong for a judge to rule that a person acted legally, but be personally against the decision morally. For instance, a judge today would not be doing his job if he found a person guilty of murder for having a legal abortion. It is not the judge's job to rule on morality. It is not the judge's job to make the public happy with his ruling. This is the very reason the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment: so that they don't have to play politics and pander to the masses.

By stepping out of this role and becoming law makers, the activist judges are making exceptions to the law to be able to make a finding that they want to make any way. I find this to be true most especially when trying to take away the concept of "One nation, under God" and turn us into a secular society.

WhatMeWorry · #19 Sep 14, '05, 1:24 pm

So, how soon will it be before the suit is filed to remove "In God We Trust" from our coins? I figure that's next.

Tonks40 · #20 Sep 14, '05, 1:27 pm

I always thought that reciting the Pledge of Alliegence in school every morning was an affirmation in our culture that we were united as a nation. It's only people like Mr. Newdow that sap the unity of such cultural practices like the Pledge out of the American spirit. Frankly, it just sickens me.

Elaine's Cross · #21 Sep 14, '05, 1:41 pm

I have no problem with the "under God" part. As a believer in the 10th Amendment and states' rights, I have a problem with the "indivisible" part. The pledge was written by a Marxist who wanted to instill in everyone faith in a strong central government at the expense of the states and the people.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo54.html

Petertherock · #22 Sep 14, '05, 1:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by aimee

I just heard about the pledge on the news

BTW, you are right..the dems/libs are out of power...just wish some of the repb...knew this..

Yeah I agree...the one thing that could cause the Republicans to lose power is if they don't use the power they have.

**rlg94086** · #23 Sep 14, '05, 1:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWM

Indeed. Quite how it *can* be argued that this keeps state and religion separate is beyond me.

Actually, it's quite simple. "God" is not a religion. The separation of church and state (correctly known as the establishment clause) was established to keep government out of religion (not vice versa btw, which is why it is also okay that they start congressional sessions with prayer) and to prevent the government from establishing a Church of America as the official church.

Apparently, the founders had some bad experiences somewhere else

God Bless,

Robert

PS The "wall of separation between church and state" was from a letter between two of the framers of the constitution. IOW, it was an opinion of at least one of the founders, but the wording was not used in the constitution.

Arba Sicula · #24 Sep 14, '05, 2:02 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elaine's Cross

The pledge was written by a Marxist

More correctly, Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, was a Christian Socialist. He believed that the American middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.

**gilliam** · #25 Sep 14, '05, 2:06 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlg94086

PS The "wall of separation between church and state" was from a letter between two of the framers of the constitution. IOW, it was an opinion of at least one of the founders, but the wording was not used in the constitution.

You are correct, there is not "wall' in the Constitution. Actually, there is no phrase separation between church and state" in the Constitution. The letter was from Thomas Jefferson to some Baptists who he was trying to get to vote for him.

So, what is in the Constitution? Only this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

By the way, it was in 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge.

swampfox · #26 Sep 14, '05, 2:10 pm

For the record, Judge Karlton who rendered this decision is a Carter appointee.

**gilliam** · #27 Sep 14, '05, 2:11 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by swampfox

For the record, Judge Karlton who rendered this decision is a Carter appointee.

For the record, I don't think he had any choice. The SCOTUS side-stepped the issue. Now they may have to rule on it. Unless Congress makes a law.

caroljm36 · #28 Sep 14, '05, 2:15 pm

Don't be too surprised if this one goes all the way and gets the Pledge declared unconstitutional everywhere in the US. It looks like Newdow took care of his "standing" problem from the last time.

It does seem kind of odd that young students would be taught to recite a creed of sorts in public school...but gee, that's how you inculcate loyalty and civic-mindedness in them, you get 'em young. In the 50s were was all sorts of civics lessons all through school. They indoctrinated us...so? When you want kids to grow up and defend the country, you don't want them to be disinterested cosmopolitans. I think the nation has a legitimate interest in teaching patriotism to its young.

But I'm afraid the "under God" part is indeed religion, since as a former agnostic I can say that the belief in God is key and is the main thing atheists can't get past. If they could believe in God all the rest would follow.

Forest-Pine · #29 Sep 14, '05, 2:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilliam

For the record, I don't think he had any choice. The SCOTUS side-stepped the issue. Now they may have to rule on it. Unless Congress makes a law.

But there are several other ways he could have ruled.

1) That the child was free to not say that part of the pledge, or any of it, if she so chose. Many Jehovas Witnesses do not say the pledge and remain sitting. If they so desire, they can even leave the room.

2) That the pledge is not required, and that the saying of the pledge does not affect her grade, so if the child chose to sit it out, she would not suffer adverse effects.

3) That, like the opening prayer of Congress and the Ten Commandments displays that were allowed, the pledge is an allowable usage of religion and not breaking the state-sponsored religion rule thingee-ma-bob (otherwise known as the Establishment Clause) that is so often grossly misinterpreted to fit liberal agendas.

4) That there is significant history to support its continuance and usage, right back to the founding of the country (when the Declaration of Independence referenced God).

MikeWM · #30 Sep 14, '05, 3:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forest-Pine

My argument is that the framers of the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence and Constitution were overtly in favor of Christianity (specifically, Protestantism) permeating political life and doctrines. The concept of the removal of religion from the government was one they actively fought against.

(lots more)

A very interesting post, thanks. I don't completely agree with all of it, but you make an interesting case

Mike