"Under God"

[Fly Rod]

Here is a guy Michael Newdow attacking our "Pledge of Allegiance" an American tradition, suposedly on the behalf of his daughter. The daughter and mother are both christians, believe in "GOD" and likes the pledge of allegiance and does not mind saying it alloud.<br />This (edit) who is "atheist" [I have nothing wrong with one's believe] using his daughter as a scape goat,has nothing to do with her is using his daughter to have the words "Under God" removed from the "Pledge of Allegiance"<br />The supreme court hopefully will throw this out of court.

 

[BrianFD]

Re: "Under God"

I say let's put it on a national referendum and let the majority decide at the polls in November.<br />If that phrase is so reprehensible to him and his daughter, just don't say it when everyone else does.<br />For me, it will always be, "One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all."

 

[SCO]

Re: "Under God"

Supreme Court is gonna do the right thing on this one. He won't prevail.

 

[NathanY]

Re: "Under God"

Is this happening on the West coast somewhere? If so, dont count on the supreme court out there to do anything. I will believe it when I see it.

 

[Boomyal]

Re: "Under God"

I'm not holding my breath Fly Rod, after the Supreme Court upheld 'campaign finance reform' which is an outright abridgment of the 1st amendment. <br /><br />In addition, Antonin Scalia has recused himself from the vote. That is one less Justice who would have upheld the inclusion of "under God"<br /><br />As of this evening 8m pst, an MSN poll(unscientific) is showing 86% to 14% in favor of keeping Under God in the pledge. It's apparent that there are many who have not been deluded by the big lie re: 'seperation of church and state.'

 

[JB]

Re: "Under God"

The reason our Constitution forbids a state religion is exactly what is happening. . . <br />86% can be wrong in forcing their religious views on the rest. . .with government collusion.<br /><br />Go easy on name calling and words like "lie" guys. They inflame, and will doom this thread to oblivion in a nanosecond.

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: "Under God"

Religion has always been a part of the US government. Why do we swear on a bible in court? Why does our money say In God We Trust?<br /><br />Sorry guys but, the USA was formed with religion in mind, just not any particular religion.<br /><br />That is what the founding fathers meant by seperation of church and state. The government cant pick a religion for you. But they all did believe in a god and religion, and believed religion is an important part of country.<br /><br />If the atheists dont like it, they can form their own colony in some far away land. This one is already established.<br /><br />Ken

 

[SpinnerBait_Nut]

Re: "Under God"

Will always be under God for me also.

 

[Boomyal]

Re: "Under God"

Well JB, a rose by any other name is still a rose. But far be it from me to want to make enemies over this issue. I'd rather make converts.<br /><br />There is much published on why this Myth about "seperation of church and state" has become so vituperously promulgated. It is spelled out in great detail in Pat Buchanan's book, Death of the West. I highly recommend all, especially you JB, as a must read.<br /><br />Additionally for those that may be unclear about the importance of this Nation paying homage to God, via a public statement, I think that Tom McClintock, a California State Senator, spells it out nicely in this speech.<br /><br /> http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/mcclintock/article_print.asp?PID=263

 

[Boomyal]

Re: "Under God"

Originally posted by Fly Rod:<br /><br />The supreme court hopefully will throw this out of court.

You don't want that Fly Rod. If they 'throw it out' they let stand the US 9th Circuit Courts ruling on making 'Under God' illegal.

 

[18rabbit]

Re: "Under God"

The whole thing is another excellent product of the People’s Republic of Kalifornia. Here's the history:<br /><br />It started somewhere near Sacramento and ended up before the highly controversial 9th Circuited Federal Court of Appeals in San Francisco. A partial court upheld removal of “under God” from the Pledge…than means only a 3-judge panel made the decision…less than a full court of judges. Huge public outcry immediately followed and the full court calendared the issued and heard it, over turning itself. That means within days “under God” was removed and then reinstated into the Pledge of Allegiance. The farther appealed the full court’s decision that "under God" was ok and it ended up before the Supreme Court.<br /><br />The original 3-judge panel was correct in their ruling. It is inappropriate for the government to require an oath contingent on the belief of a Supreme deity. This is NOT my opinion…it is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this country’s founders and our Constitution. Our Pledge of Allegiance must be restored to its original wording without the phrase “under God”.<br /><br />EDIT: Boomyal – you are right! The ‘separation of Church and State’ was invented in 1964(?) by the Supreme Court and is distorted beyond reason today.<br /><br />Boomyal – you are wrong! The 9th Circuited Federal Court of Appeals has decided it IS appropriate for “under God” to remain in the Pledge of Allegiance. Fwiw, the 9th Circuit Court is unacceptably liberal and results in more decision being over turned by the Supreme Court than any other court in the history if this country.<br /><br />If I were a betting person (and I’m not) I’d put my $$$ on the Supreme Court over tuning the 9th Circuit…again. Consider the challenges the Boy Scouts of America went thru to keep a reference to God in their oath…and that was based on the fact that the BSA is a private organization.

 

[Toad2001]

Re: "Under God"

I wish I had faith that when people put their hand on the bible in court that it made a difference whether they were telling the truth or not.<br />Politicians, witnesses and criminals lie regardless in many many cases-IMO.

 

[Fly Rod]

Re: "Under God"

Boomyal <br /><br />Didn't think of it that way.<br />Only ment to have his suit thrown out of court.

 

[roscoe]

Re: "Under God"

Yes Toad, and thats a deed they will have to take up with THEIR god, whoever that may be.<br /><br />18rabbit-

The original 3-judge panel was correct in their ruling. It is inappropriate for the government to require an oath contingent on the belief of a Supreme deity.

Upon whom has the government ever required this?<br />THe pledge is, and always has been a voluntary recitation.<br /><br />FYI. Even the most cautious and wary of the founding fathers on the subject of a state sponsored religion, Thomas Jefferson, used federal moneys to hold religious services.<br /><br />Can't wait till the few that are pushing this go after the cemetaries, and want all the tombstones polished smooth.<br /><br />Personally, I thinks its time for congress to draft a new constitutional amendment, that clarifies what most of us know. Once it is part of the constitution, even the courts can't declare it unconstitutional.

 

[plywoody]

Re: "Under God"

I agree, JB.<br /><br />There is no way the phrase "under god" can be interpreted in any way other than a religious one, and therefore ought to be unconstitutional.<br /><br />I find it curious that the justification for it rests not on constitutional grounds, but rather pretty much on other examples of religion creeping into our government.<br /><br />Or that the majority think it is ok. The courts, and the bill of rights, specifically were designed to prevent the sort of tyranny of the majority. There are countless examples of the majority being wrong in this country, and I am thankful the founding fathers designed the courts to correct these wrongs.<br /><br />FTR, I believe the court will cave on this one, in some way--probably by deciding that the father does not have custody of the child, and therefore has no standing to bring the matter to court in the first place---thereby avoiding making a decision.<br /><br />As far as what the mother and child really think, who really knows? Can you imagine what the religious right would do to that child if the mother and child came out in favor of this action? And what mother would possibly wish that on her child? If you were that child's mother, what would you say--whatever you believed in?<br /><br />Which is precisely why this court decision should be upheld.

 

[18rabbit]

Re: "Under God"

THe pledge is, and always has been a voluntary recitation.

Roscoe – this is incorrect. The Pledge was required of all California children attending public schools. The decision of the 3-judge panel was to strike down the requirement of the Pledge because of its support of a monotheistic deity. Under pressure from public opinion, the liberal full court reinstated the optional use of the Pledge in the schools as something a child could opt out of.<br /><br />Reference: in court testimony where an oath is required, in California that oath is “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” I don’t when “so help me God” was removed from the end of the oath, or if it ever really was there.<br /><br />Reference: Art 20, sec 3 of the California Constitution…the required Oath of Office…no reference to deity.<br /><br />Problems: the liberal 9th Circuit court permitted “opting out” of the Pledge. They also were at the heart of decisions regarding school uniforms and the Constitutional challenges to that. (Fwiw, one of the very few causes the ACLU got involved with that was worthy!) Again, the 9th Circuit decided uniforms could be required but a child could “opt out”. (See the 1967 Supreme Court decision in Tinker vs. Des Moine School District.) Problem 1: your constitutionally protected rights are yours and not something you opt into . Instead, you may opt out of having your rights protected. In some situations you cannot surrender your constitutionally protected rights even if you wanted to. Problem 2: The 9th Circuit is too influenced by public opinion. This puts an incredible amount of power in the hands of a democratic entity…one of the most evil incarnations on the face of the planet. You do not want an entity with that much power over you to cave to public opinion. That is why our government is founded as a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.<br /><br />Challenge: for those that would support the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge, do you have a problem with insertion of an “s” … “under Gods” so the Pledge is also palatable with polytheistic doctrine? You still have your reference to divinity and when you voluntarily recite the Pledge, you can just ‘know’ in your own hearts that “Gods” refers to your own monotheistic deity. It was changed once, let's change it again.<br /><br />The Pledge is over 100-years old. It was originally written without any reference to God. Congress inserted that “God” reference in 1958(?). The Pledge used to be required by all military personnel but I don’t know if that is still the case. I recall challenges to that some years ago.

 

[JB]

Re: "Under God"

"Under God" was inserted into the Pledge in 1954 by a unanimous vote of Congress, thus making it a "law establishing a state religion" forbidden by our Constitution..<br /><br />The rationale was to further distinguish the differences between the US and "Godless Communist States", thus admitting that it is a further confirmation of monotheism as the official state "religion" in this country.<br /><br />It defied the Constitution then, and it defies it now.

 

[Elmer Fudge]

Re: "Under God"

This fellow must have some serious problems.<br />I don't recall the pledge being for an allegiance to God,i am of the understanding that pledging allegiance to one's country is excercising one's right to a shared patriotism with their fellow citizens.<br />Speaking as one who does'nt hold any religious beliefs,who is not into any form of God or Devil worshiping,i am yet to comprehend the actual motivation behind this individual's actions.<br />In other words:What is his beef? <br />If he does'nt love or even like America,i'm sure he is not being held here against his will.

 

[ob]

Re: "Under God"

I don't see the words "under God" in the countries pledge being an "establishment" of any religion.And it certainly is no more unconstitutional than afirmative action IMO.<br /><br />Anyone that is truly offended by these two words has other issues IMO.<br /><br />If we are to address nitpicking technicalities ,then I think we need to be consistent and address them all.So help me,me.

 

[18rabbit]

Re: "Under God"

If he does'nt love or even like America,i'm sure he is not being held here against his will.

He might be. The (former) I.N.S. and State Dept. used to routinely deport people with dual citizenship for political reasons. The Supreme Court told them to knock it off with a decision (mid 1980’s, I think) that stated the choice of citizenship was every person’s inalienable right, not the government’s.<br /><br />As a result of this decision, the State Dept. took it upon themself to enact rules on how to go about renouncing ones citizenship. It can only be done as a procedure in a U.S. embassy in a foreign country. You cannot renounce your citizenship in the U.S. or any of its territories … places you can go without a passport.<br /><br />In recent years, congress has started quietly enacted legislation that prohibits issuing passports under certain, non-criminal circumstances, effectively prohibiting the renouncing of citizenships for classes of people, including anyone that cannot afford a passport. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the ability to move about freely is an inalienable right protected by the Constitution. This is ready for a court challenge.<br /><br />It is going to be interesting to see what happens when ID’s are required. Another case currently on the docket to be heard by the Supreme Court involves an obligation to identify yourself to police if they asked and you are not the subject of a criminal investigation … currently you do not have to. In the wake of 9/11 it is expected the Court will rule that you will have to identify yourself. If that is so, how will people without access to a passport or driver’s license identify themselves? How will someone without a fixed residence acquire a state ID?<br /><br />The courts are corrupt beyond belief.