Pledge Ruled Unconstitutional

we gotta start removing "In God We Trust" from all our dolla' bills.

********************************

Pledge Ruled Unconstitutional
Wed Jun 26, 2:52 PM ET
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (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 ( news - web sites) 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 ( news - web sites) 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."

the bitch is these people don't feel "threatened" using dollar bills that say "In God We Trust."

In fact, I've never heard anyone complain about it.

So I guess some of us (about 75% of the American population) are delusional?

I'm having a ball with this, so I've re-written the POA:

I pledge allegiance...

...to the Flag of the Untied States of America. And to the Godless Republic for which It stands, barely one-half a Nation, under absolutely no acknowledgment of a Sumpreme Being whatsoever, very divisible, with Liberty and Justice for all practicing atheists, and persecution for anyone practicing religion.

i for one, beleive in the seperation of church and state.

i too believe that my religious beliefs aren't minimal. they are great and they have helped me a lot. i think it's minimizing my faith to put GOD on some bill or pledge. to put the name GOD in a place were people lie and tons of hypocrital stuff goes on is very low for me (i'm referring to putting GOD in courthouses). But, that's just me.

i understand the sacrmaneto man (had to be cali) and his constitutional right(s). but he too has to understand that there are lot of people in this country that are upset with the ruling.

i too understand the 77% that is upset with this ruling. but they too have to understand the freedom of the individual.

i too understand when someone thinks i'm delusional becasue i believe in a jewish carpenter that's lives in the clouds. the individual hasn't been through or experienced what i have.

it's all about understanding each other. . .

all three polls waver between 69-70%.

btw,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If we take GOD (Creator) out of the picture, then who has endowed us with these rights? Man maybe? I hope for our collective souls not, because if these right where given to us by man then what is stopping man from taking those right away?

uhm...i don't know, you're the protector of the constitution around here.

btw, it the declaration of independence.

Senators call Pledge decision 'stupid'


WASHINGTON (CNN) --Shortly after a federal appeals court ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, the Senate Wednesday approved a resolution "expressing support for the Pledge of Allegiance" and asking Senate counsel to "seek to intervene in the case."

The resolution passed 99-0.

The Senate resolution came about quickly after lawmakers on both sides of the aisle were outraged as news spread of the decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ruled the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional "endorsement of religion" because of the addition of the phrase "under God" in 1954 by Congress.

In an impassioned speech on the Senate floor just before the resolution vote, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, said he is the only remaining member of Congress who voted for the addition of "under God" on June 7, 1954. He warned the judges who declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional to never come before him because "he'll be blackballed."

"I wonder if that judge would hold the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional," said Byrd.

"I hope the Senate will waste no time in throwing this back in the face of this stupid judge. Stupid, that's what he is."

Meanwhile, House Speaker Dennis Hastert Wednesday said the decision underscores the need for the Senate to confirm "some common sense jurists."

In a statement, Hastert said:

"Obviously, the liberal court in San Francisco has gotten this one wrong. Of course, we are one nation, under God. The Pledge of Allegiance is a patriotic salute that brings people of all faiths together to share in the American spirit.

"I strongly believe that parents, teachers and local schools should encourage children to recite the pledge to start the day, the same way those of us in Congress begin our daily business, (and) not allow a liberal judge to take it away. It's time for the Senate to move forward and confirm some common-sense jurists."

At one point late Wednesday, about 100-150 House members, mostly Republicans, gathered on the steps outside the Capitol and recited the Pledge of Allegiance in a show of support.

The Senate resolution was pushed quickly to the floor by Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, with the backing of Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi.

Of the court's ruling, Daschle said, "This decision is nuts."

Lott concurred: "This is obviously an unbelievable decision, as far as I am concerned, and an incorrect ruling and a stupid ruling."