Judge: Pledge unconstitutional
A federal judge in Sacramento, Calif., ruled the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional.
The pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God," said U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton.
It's hard to find groups or individuals who will publicly celebrate this decision other than American's United for Seperation of Church and State. The ACLU doesn't even have a celebratory news item on their site yet.
I think that demonstrates how out of the mainstream and unpopular this decision is. It also shows us how important these Supreme Court nominees are.
Go to ThisIsWhatIBelieve.com to sign a petition.
6 comments:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America..."
whether the words "under God" are in there or not, the "pledge" and its meaning (not just the words)should be taught in schools.
very well put, sailor.I agree.
His wife probably told him, "sure honey, make a federal case out of it."
and he did.
Suppose it was...
"one nation, with no god, indivisible... "
You'd probably feel anger and make a federal case about it. So, think about how an atheist feels, every day having to pledge allegiance to a god that they don't believe in.
Wouldn't it be BETTER if the pledge was just, "one nation, indivisible... "
Instead, you're trying to divide us with the majority's religious belief. "Under God" divides us, when by definition, we are indivisible.
the word “god” (and no, it doesn’t make a difference if capitalized, as the Judeo-Christian god’s name is not “God” but the unpronounceable YHWH) does not stand for a single deity, nor a pantheon of deities, nor a religious aspect of any kind, but whatever entity you hold as superior to the state.
Here is the important thing:
We all know we have rights. It says so in the Constitution and other places. But where do rights come from?
If you subscribe to the Newdow philosophy of “freedom FROM religion,” then you take away the notion that rights must come from something higher than government. This is dangerous.
If you believe that your rights exist because the Constitution, or courts, or legislatures, or any part of government say so, then GOVERNMENT CAN TAKE THEM AWAY.
You have a “first amendment” right to freedom of association. Does that right only exist because the first amendment says it does?
What if 2/3 of each House of Congress andd 3/4 of the States agree to repeal the first amendment?
Does that mean that the government can then tell you who your friends (and enemies) are?
THINK ABOUT THIS.
A belief in something, ANYTHING, that is above and beyond the power of government is essential to protect us FROM government.
That thing is called God.
believe whatever you wish about what “God” is. Call God YHWH or Allah or Buddha or the Collective Ubersoul, or the Ghost of your Aunt Matilda. BUT HAVE SOMETHING, ANYTHING, AS A “GOD” IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PLEDGE, OR ELSE GOVERNMENT BECOMES GOD AND YOU ARE TOTALLY BEHOLDEN TO IT.
After 3rd grade, I realized that I didn't understand what I was pledging, and asked the teacher if I would get in trouble for not saying it. She told me no, and I haven't said it since.
I think the choice is all that matters. It's always been there, you just have to take it.
While I disagree with the court ruling, I'd like to point out that the Pledge has been "amended" a number of times since it was first written, and did not include "under God" until 1954. It's not exactly tradition, but it's not exactly a brand new concept either. During the Cold War, the words were added to separate the United States from the "godless Communists".If it needs to be changed, why not do it (or not do it) democratically. How's that for a slap in the face to Communists?
The only way to really do it is by Constitutional amendment (or in this case, "addition". Make it the 29th Amendment.
Post a Comment