It Finally Happened - The Pledge Of Allegiance Is Unconstitutional

[GotZoom]

Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance 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.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/14/D8CK6JOG4.html

 

[archangel]

Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance 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.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/14/D8CK6JOG4.html

as the old saying goes..."It's not over until the fat lady sings" The 9th Circuit court of perverted appeals is on it's last leg...sorta speak...Their robes are filthy and it is time for a wash! Anyone have a recomendation for a good detergent?

 

[Abbey Normal]

Thank God we will probably have Roberts on the Supreme Court soon. Now we just need another like him to take O'connor's place.

 

[Avatar4321]

Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance 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.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/14/D8CK6JOG4.html

What? I was under the impression that there was no legal precedent to the 2002 9th circuit ruling because it was overturned since he had no legal standing to bring the case to begin with.

 

[GotZoom]

What? I was under the impression that there was no legal precedent to the 2002 9th circuit ruling because it was overturned since he had no legal standing to bring the case to begin with.

They dismissed it because he didn't have custody of his daughter.

 

[Avatar4321]

They dismissed it because he didn't have custody of his daughter.

That's exactly what I'm saying. He had no legal standing so the decision was overturned. How did this become precedent then?

 

[dmp]

That's exactly what I'm saying. He had no legal standing so the decision was overturned. How did this become precedent then?

...because one can graduate law school, work as an attorney, and even become a judge allthewhile being a 'retard'.

 

[Abbey Normal]

...because one can graduate law school, work as an attorney, and even become a judge allthewhile being a 'retard'.

He may not even be an attorney.

 

[insein]

This avoids the one key thing. Students are not FORCED to say the pledge. They simply say it. Most dont even understand the words they recite. Some mumble through it. Some dont say it.

Its fucking simple if you dont want your kid saying the pledge then have her not say it. Im positive that any teacher without a thorn up her ass will allow this. Especially in this touchy feely politically correct world we have degenerated into. There is no need to make a federal case out of it and cost the tax payers thousands of dollars trying to prove how big an asshole you are.

 

[GotZoom]

That's exactly what I'm saying. He had no legal standing so the decision was overturned. How did this become precedent then?

"Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue."

Karlton is the judge.

 

[Annie]

They dismissed it because he didn't have custody of his daughter.

Not this ruling, you are speaking of the past one.

 

[Annie]

This avoids the one key thing. Students are not FORCED to say the pledge. They simply say it. Most dont even understand the words they recite. Some mumble through it. Some dont say it.

Its fucking simple if you dont want your kid saying the pledge then have her not say it. Im positive that any teacher without a thorn up her ass will allow this. Especially in this touchy feely politically correct world we have degenerated into. There is no need to make a federal case out of it and cost the tax payers thousands of dollars trying to prove how big an asshole you are.

Not in my class! First week, we dissect the pledge and its meaning, along with the Lord's prayer. Benefit of parochial school.

 

[insein]

Not in my class! First week, we dissect the pledge and its meaning, along with the Lord's prayer. Benefit of parochial school.

and if the child has objections based on what their parents have expressed, do you force them to recite the pledge even after the new understanding?

 

[manu1959]

i pledge allegiance to the flag
of the united states of America
and to the republic for which it stands
i nation under god
indivisible with liberty and justice for all

my seven year old said that the word god is non denominational and thus works for all religions

i asked him about those that don't believe in a god

he said that they will be sorry some day

 

[Annie]

and if the child has objections based on what their parents have expressed, do you force them to recite the pledge even after the new understanding?

I didn't mean that in the first place, though it's never come up in our school, probably because it is parochial. I meant that the kids SHOULD know what they are saying, not just reciting for recitation's sake alone.

 

[insein]

I didn't mean that in the first place, though it's never come up in our school, probably because it is parochial. I meant that the kids SHOULD know what they are saying, not just reciting for recitation's sake alone.

i know. But if a student cameto you with that request, would you bite their head off? Im just saying that this whole thing is once again a waste of money.

 

[acludem]

"Under God" never should have been put into the pledge of allegience. It wasn't there to begin with when the pledge was written (by a minister no less) and was only added in 1954 because the Knights of Columbus campaigned for it. We cannot be "one nation, under God, indivisible" when not everyone here believes in God. It isn't just atheists, either. Non-Christian religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism also do not believe in "God". Muslims would prefer the pledge say "one nation, under Allah".

This judge didn't go far enough, he should have declared the 1954 law that added "Under God" to the pledge unconstitutional. Dividing our nation along religious lines does harm to us all. I should be able to pledge allegience to my country without having to pledge allegience to "God". Forcing people to pledge allegience to "God" which we do as a requirement of citizenship effectively establishes belief in "God" as the official religion of the United States, clearly violating the first amendment establishment clause.

acludem

 

[theim]

"Under God" never should have been put into the pledge of allegience. It wasn't there to begin with when the pledge was written (by a minister no less) and was only added in 1954 because the Knights of Columbus campaigned for it. We cannot be "one nation, under God, indivisible" when not everyone here believes in God. It isn't just atheists, either. Non-Christian religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism also do not believe in "God". Muslims would prefer the pledge say "one nation, under Allah".

This judge didn't go far enough, he should have declared the 1954 law that added "Under God" to the pledge unconstitutional. Dividing our nation along religious lines does harm to us all. I should be able to pledge allegience to my country without having to pledge allegience to "God". Forcing people to pledge allegience to "God" which we do as a requirement of citizenship effectively establishes belief in "God" as the official religion of the United States, clearly violating the first amendment establishment clause.

acludem

"God" IS NOT a religion. Nobody converts to Godism. Do you realize how many religons recognize God? God is in the Declaration of Independance. Should we stop teaching that too? Now that we have forbidden schoolchildren to swaer loyalty to their own country, that doesn't seem like such an illogical step.

Only to a liberal is even mentioning God "dividing" people.

 

[acludem]

I didn't say "Godism". I said that the United States government was mandating a belief in "God" as the official religion of the United States. This excludes atheists, agnositics, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. The only way I'm wrong is for you to argue that "God" is not a religious figure.

acludem

 

[Bonnie]

"Under God" never should have been put into the pledge of allegience. It wasn't there to begin with when the pledge was written (by a minister no less) and was only added in 1954 because the Knights of Columbus campaigned for it. We cannot be "one nation, under God, indivisible" when not everyone here believes in God. It isn't just atheists, either. Non-Christian religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism also do not believe in "God". Muslims would prefer the pledge say "one nation, under Allah".

This judge didn't go far enough, he should have declared the 1954 law that added "Under God" to the pledge unconstitutional. Dividing our nation along religious lines does harm to us all. I should be able to pledge allegience to my country without having to pledge allegience to "God". Forcing people to pledge allegience to "God" which we do as a requirement of citizenship effectively establishes belief in "God" as the official religion of the United States, clearly violating the first amendment establishment clause.

acludem

Just don't say the words "under god", no one is actually forcing anyone to say anything......I suppose you support stripping money of any reference to a higher being as well??