Exxxxxcellent!
Posted on 09/14/2005 11:51:27 AM PDT by Rightwingmom
SAN FRANCISCO — Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance (search) in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
You don't have to recite it. You can recite it even if it's not required. But when it's required it becomes a constitutional problem.
Same with prayer in school. Would you want your kid going to a public school that mandated a daily prayer to Allah? No, and it would be unconstitutional for them to do so.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case based on lack of standing. They did not decide the case on the merits.
Let's not be too harsh on the Carter appointee. The existing 9th Circuit decision in the previous Newdow case did tie his hands in this case.
That makes sense. I had forgotten that they dismissed it.
One???? Shizzle, let's turn over HALF of them every year.
I have no problem with the school holding the recital each day...those who do not want to can stand there and remain quiet, or be allowed to stand outside the room if they wish, while those who do want to recite it proceed..
Moral Absolutes Ping.
I thought that the SCOTUS had taken care of it; apparently not. So it will get bumped up to the top again. What the SCOTUS says will no doubt in part be determined by what kind of judge Roberts is (if he's appointed, which I assume he will be), and whoever is the unknown.
Conservatives need to think more about atheists* - what drives them, what their goals are, the methods and tactics they use, what is their game plan.
I never read any of their stuff, I suppose they have websites and books and meetings and foundations and who knows what else. But obviously they have a plan to eradicate every single teeny tiny reference to God in every single sphere of life that can be remotely considered public.
Does anyone really think that that's what the First Amendment means?
Here it is for reference:
"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 of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition to Government for a redress of grievances."
Do you see Congress establishing a state religion by schoolchildren reciting the pledge of allegiance because the name of God is mentioned?
I don't.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Note: Keep in mind that appeasement has never, not once, stopped an evildoer from doing more evil. It only encourages them to prey upon weakness even more.
*I'm referring to the activist ones. There are harmless ones (relatively speaking) who actually appreciate the residual moral values originating in religious tradition, or are neutral and appreciate that believers in God have rights too. But the activist, radical avowed atheists are the really dangerous ones.
Is our money unconstitutional as well?
Nope...we are not in a state of war, and despite the lateness of the hour and the breadth and depth of the assault, we still have legal, civil recourse.
Until that is totally exhausted, as it was with our founders, then we are obligated to civilly, tierlessly...even loudly if necessary...and perhaps with civil disobedience (as we will do here in Idaho) fight this and get it turned over.
If they come with guns drawn to stop citizens doing so at a football game or at school, things may get interesting. But that will not happen here in Idaho on this issue IMHO.
That is untrue. The idea that the First Amendment prohibits states from compelling the Pledge of Allegiance or even from establishing their own official state religions is probably the most easily proved lie of the many the Supreme Court has issued through the years.
The First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth...commands that a state 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'
--Justice Hugo Black, Everson v. Bd of Education of Ewing Twp., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
This declaration by the Supreme Court was the first time it informed everyone that the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment was applicable to the states. Before that time, state-religion issues were not the province of the US Constitution or the federal courts. But was the Supreme Court right? Did the 14th Amendment make the Establishment Clause applicable to the states?
Go back to 1875 (7 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified)...President Grant asks Congressman James Blaine to introduce a proposed amendment that will provide in part:
No state shall make any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
The Blaine Amendment (which would have been the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution passes the House but fails in the Senate. Senator Frelinghuysen of NJ, in introducing the amendment in the Senate states:
The [Blaine Amendment] very properly extends the prohibition of the first amendment of the Constitution to the States. Thus the [Blaine Amendment] prohibits the States, for the first time, from the establishment of religion, from prohibiting its free exercise, and from making any religious test a qualification to office.
Senator Eaton of Connecticut, in objecting to the Blaine Amendment states, on the Senate floor:
I am opposed to any State prohibiting the free exercise of any religion; and I do not require the Senate or the Congress of the United States to assist me in taking care of the State of Connecticut in that regard.
Senator Whyte agreed:
The first amendment to the Constitution prevents the establishment of religion by congressional enactment; it prohibits the interference of Congress with the free exercise thereof, and leaves the whole power for the propagation of it with the States exclusively; and so far as I am concerned I propose to leave it there also.
The Congressional record during the debates over the Blaine Amendment shows that not one member of Congress...many of whom were in the Congress that passed the 14th Amendment or the state legislatures that ratified it...not a single one...mentioned that the Blaine Amendment was unnecessary...it seems that none of the Congressmen who ratified the 14th Amendment knew that they thereby incorporated the Establishment Clause against the states...the Everson case must be another fine example of Constitutional fiction...I mean..."interpretation"
Can't we pass an amendment to declare Newdow, himself, unconstitutional?
Praise be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
You're right. It's not required. Although any public school teacher that says "Let's all stand for the Pledge" and leads the class in the recital (espceially to the very young who don't know the difference) constitutes the same problem.
Personally, I don't care what the outcome of all this is. It does not affect me at all. I'm just interested in the game. It's fun to watch.
As we have seen with illegal aliens and the zero enforcement of our immigration laws, these are laws which nobody is expected to obey.
Consequently, any law resulting from this particular decision will merely be one more law which we can choose to ignore.
Resume reciting our normal "under God" pledge.
Praise be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
You're right. It's not required. Although any public school teacher that says "Let's all stand for the Pledge" and leads the class in the recital (espceially to the very young who don't know the difference) constitutes the same problem.
Personally, I don't care what the outcome of all this is. It does not affect me at all. I'm just interested in the game. It's fun to watch.
I have no problem with children of all ages being exposed to it. If the very youg children's parents do not approve, they can certainly request their children to not be a part. As they get older, they can choose for themselves to opt out.
In the mean time, a good percentage will take it seriously, as, IMHO, they should.
We did that last time here in Idaho...I expect we shall do so again.
If Civic Duty is your concern, why not take the "Under God" out and restore the Pledge to the pre-1954 non-Knights of Columbus version? That one was all about Allegiance to the country and nothing to do with religion at all.
ARGH! WTF!!!!!!
"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."
Now what about all the hundreds of children and parents who have no issue with the pledge? Why can't they (the students) continue to say the pledge? They aren't forcing the children of these moronic parents to say it. Karlton, Newdow and these parents need to have their heads examined.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.