Pledge of Alligiance - Unconstitutional?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Tuberski



Who is buddha then?

A man.

[Imran Siddiqui]

if the word "God" appears, it's definitely unconstitutional.

Why? How does that impinge on Freedom of Religion if people aren't forced to worship?

[Lincoln]

Fro Fox news:

WASHINGTON — "Wrong decision" is the White House response to a federal court ruling Wednesday that called the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it includes the words "under God."


"The president's reaction was that this ruling is ridiculous," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, who said President Bush was informed of the San Francisco court's ruling while attendin the G-8 summit in Calgary, Canada. "The Supreme Court itself begins each of its sessions with the phrase, 'God save the United States and this honorable court.'"

"The view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision and the Department Justice is now evaluating how to seek redress," he added.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Pledge unconstitutional Wednesday because in includes the phrase "under God," added by Congress in 1954. The court 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.

Congressional reaction also was swift and unkind.

"Just nuts," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said on the Senate floor.

"Stupid, stupid," echoed Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W. Va.

"Political activism run amok," said Sen. George Allen, R-Va.

"I've been searching for a nice way to put it since I first heard about this ... There isn't. This is idiotic," said Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga.

"Obviously, the liberal court in San Francisco has gotten this one wrong," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "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. It's time for the Senate to move forward and confirm some common-sense jurists."

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 had dismissed his lawsuit.

Newdow, a doctor who holds a law degree and represented himself, called the pledge a "religious idea that certain people don't agree with."

The decision will affect only the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state, which the 9th Circuit Court covers.

Though no word has been made of an appeal yet, many believe the case could be heard by the United States Supreme Court.

"I think the Pledge is a good thing for the country and I hope we keep it," said House Minority Leader **** Gephardt, D-Mo. "[T]his is a normative thing, it is not a religious question ... and I would hope that in the future that would be the view of the court."

"In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned 27 of 29 9th Circuit decisions so that tells you that the 9th Circuit is out of step with the rest of the federal judiciary," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

[KrazyHorse]

So you wouldn't mind if instead of "God" they referred explicitly to the Christian God?

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

if the word "God" appears, it's definitely unconstitutional.

Why? How does that impinge on Freedom of Religion if people aren't forced to worship?

So only monotheists are true American patriots?

After all, the Pledge of Allegiance is supposed to represent all the ideals necessary for true allegiance to the American Republic. If the words "under God" appear in it, it means that monotheism is an integral part of American patriotism.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Fro Fox news:

WASHINGTON — "Wrong decision" is the White House response to a federal court ruling Wednesday that called the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it includes the words "under God."


"The president's reaction was that this ruling is ridiculous," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, who said President Bush was informed of the San Francisco court's ruling while attendin the G-8 summit in Calgary, Canada. "The Supreme Court itself begins each of its sessions with the phrase, 'God save the United States and this honorable court.'"

"The view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision and the Department Justice is now evaluating how to seek redress," he added.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Pledge unconstitutional Wednesday because in includes the phrase "under God," added by Congress in 1954. The court 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.

Congressional reaction also was swift and unkind.

"Just nuts," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said on the Senate floor.

"Stupid, stupid," echoed Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W. Va.

"Political activism run amok," said Sen. George Allen, R-Va.

"I've been searching for a nice way to put it since I first heard about this ... There isn't. This is idiotic," said Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga.

"Obviously, the liberal court in San Francisco has gotten this one wrong," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "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. It's time for the Senate to move forward and confirm some common-sense jurists."

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 had dismissed his lawsuit.

Newdow, a doctor who holds a law degree and represented himself, called the pledge a "religious idea that certain people don't agree with."

The decision will affect only the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state, which the 9th Circuit Court covers.

Though no word has been made of an appeal yet, many believe the case could be heard by the United States Supreme Court.

"I think the Pledge is a good thing for the country and I hope we keep it," said House Minority Leader **** Gephardt, D-Mo. "[T]his is a normative thing, it is not a religious question ... and I would hope that in the future that would be the view of the court."

"In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned 27 of 29 9th Circuit decisions so that tells you that the 9th Circuit is out of step with the rest of the federal judiciary," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

Good to see that America has renewed its membership in the Axis of Religious Countries, one that also includes Iran and the Vatican.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So only monotheists are true American patriots?

After all, the Pledge of Allegiance is supposed to represent all the ideals necessary for true allegiance to the American Republic. If the words "under God" appear in it, it means that monotheism is an integral part of American patriotism.

*Shrug* Maybe it means that to you. So what? Why is it unconstitutional?

I asked you how it was unconstitutional and you told me something about patriots. I want a real answer.

So you wouldn't mind if instead of "God" they referred explicitly to the Christian God?

Nope. It isn't unconstitutional. Now if they made me recite something to him or believe in him that is different, but you can't be forced to say the pledge (at least that is how the law works).

[KrazyHorse]

By forcing you to pay for the school they recite it in, they're not actuallyallowing for freedom of religion.

Same as if they taxed people to support a certain political point of view...

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
*Shrug* Maybe it means that to you. So what? Why is it unconstitutional?

I asked you how it was unconstitutional and you told me something about patriots. I want a real answer.

I gave you a real answer. If you want a shorter, more concise version, here it is.

pledge of allegiance > embodies ideals of patriotism
monotheism > found within the pledge of allegiance
therefore:
monotheism > an ideal of patriotism

which is grossly unconstitutional, unless you're talking about the Iranian constitution.

[Lincoln]

I think atheists are upset because the pledge does not say "one nation without God..."

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tuberski
How is this endorsing one religion over another? Doesn't every religion believe in (a) God?

Certainly not.

For example, the atheist religion and agnostic religions believe quite the opposite actually.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I think atheists are upset because the pledge does not say "one nation without God..."

The idea is it shouldn't say either, Lincoln.

It's totally useless but it's subtle fearmongering and annoying to those of us who aren't blinded by "faith" in the supernatural.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I think atheists are upset because the pledge does not say "one nation without God..."

We're upset because it says "one nation under God".

It would be fine if it said "one nation". That at least respects atheists and polytheists.

I think monotheists are upset because they want to continue saying "one nation under God", which asserts that monotheism is the *right* American religion.

[Lincoln]

If that phrase is "grossly unconstitutional" then so is the constitution. It was ratified "in the year of our LORD ?? 1779..."

[Asher]

The current date system exists because we've used it for countless years, not because we believe in God.