Posted on 06/30/2002 10:19:33 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow
Sunday, June 30, 2002 10:36 p.m. EDT Pledge Ruling Certifies California as the Land of Fruits and Nuts NewsMax.com contributor Fr. Michael Reilly deconstructs the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. The California federal court attacked the Pledge of Allegiance on the grounds that it established religion, a violation of the First Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights. Our Constitution is based on the concept of inalienable rights, rights which the government cannot take away. What makes those rights inalienable? According to the Declaration of Independence, man is endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights. In other words, the reason that the government cannot violate our basic rights is that they come from a higher source: God. So in the name of these basic rights, the California judges claim that schoolchildren cannot invoke the name of God, because an atheist may feel like an outsider. The fact is, the little girl in question is an outsider if she does not believe in God. Furthermore, according to the reasoning of the court, she has no rights since we cannot recognize the God who is the source and foundation of our rights. In essence, the United States has always been a country based on Judeo-Christian values. Last week, the California courts tried to establish a new religion: secularism. They must be opposed. Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics: A product that might interest you:
School Choice
The fascinating story behind the Church
From a legal viewpoint, what the 9th Circuit did wrong was overlook the 1943 Supreme Court decision which ruled that the pledge was voluntary.You can't ban voluntary speech, especially if your aim is to "sanitize" all speech on government property of any reference to theism (because that would create a bias towards atheism).
If the court had said that people can't be compelled to pledge, then that would have been one thing (although possibly outside the scope of that case even then).
But they went further than that. They said that people can't make the pledge at all in front of students.
They can't do that, Constitutionally, and that's why their decision will be voided, either by themselves or by the Supreme Court.
Voluntary speech can't be banned, after all.
But the confusion is understandable.
I hadn't noticed such, but it would be great news if they had.
The man who started all this is an ER Doc in Sacramento. Lives in Elk Grove. His wife and daughter are Christians...he's an atheist. His wife and daughter attend the same church I do. Small world.
Our pastor and the Newdow wife will be on national tv w/in the next 24 hours.
Pray for the safety of this woman and her child. How horrid that Doc Newdow is using his child as a pawn...
Will update as I hear news.
God bless you all. HSM
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.