Federal judge declares Pledge unconstitutional

[Proletariat]

I'm very glad the US and Aus don't make their dual-citizens choose one or the other when they turn 18.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Edit: I see, Red Harvest has provided a basic major point here. Thank you.

And the term seperation of church and state was started in 1947 by a Supreme court judge who was also a former clansmen and hated the catholic church. I believe it had something to do with denying funds for religous schools.

Heres a goos artilce on the subject.

Separation of Church and State

In 1947, the Supreme Court attempted to define the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the court, held:


Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. . . . In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against the establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a "wall of separation between Church and State." [Everson v. Board of Education (1947).]

[Xiahou]

(The storm clouds on the horizon in the silver lining are that they may be stupid and rule it unconstitutional.)

Pretty much zero chance of that happening. I doubt even the most liberal justices have the stones to declare the Pledge unconstitutional. Certainly nowhere near enough of them for a majority.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

"Establishment of Religion" seems pretty self explanatory

Yes it means there cannot be a church of the United States like there is a church of England and thats all it means.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Really? Where's all that text that says so? Establishment of Religion means just that. An Establishment of Religion. Any Establishment of Religion.

OK exactly what constitutes the establishment of a relgion?

[GoreBag]

By "clansman", you both mean "klansman", right? Just clearing this up.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:
When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2)

The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.

The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.

To imagine suggest anything else is assinine.

The Myth of the Separation of Church and State

[ichi]

Alright my poll sucks but the pledge should stay just like it is

you're right about the poll, I voted Gah! because I didn't know how to vote to say that the government should not be allowed to require children to say things that have anything to do with religion or god or faith.

IMO children should be aloowed to say the pledge, with or without the God thingy part, but no one should be required to do so. Remember that the Judge didn't declare the Pedge unconstitutional (although thats what the media hype and fanatical ravings will imply), he said that it is unconstitutional to require anyone to affirm a beleif in God.

Which is exactly as it should be. If guv can make kids say they believe in God, they can make you say things too.

ichi

[Red Harvest]

It's good that we have Gawain to determine what Jefferson meant, and the Constitution.

One thing is clear to me. Religion and government don't mix, and should be kept separate. One of the great advances of the last few centuries has been in separating one's church from one's government. The alteration of the pledge is a textbook example of a change being made for religious reasons. It's backers wanted to display their religious beliefs in comparison to the atheist communist regime. If they had chosen Allah, Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Christians would be screaming to have it changed. If it said the state was more important than God, we would also scream. That's why that First Amendment is there, to prevent things like that from happening.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Religion and government don't mix, and should be kept separate.

But what the bloody hell does that mean?

Can a law be passed that had religious basis?

The Bible says "Thou Shalt Not Kill" - and we have laws to that effect. To completely seperate religion and government, must we remove laws prohibiting homicide, which is prohibited by several religions?

[Red Harvest]

But what the bloody hell does that mean?

Can a law be passed that had religious basis?

The Bible says "Thou Shalt Not Kill" - and we have laws to that effect. To completely seperate religion and government, must we remove laws prohibiting homicide, which is prohibited by several religions?

I don't see a need for a religious basis for prohibiting murder, theft, etc. You are going out in left field on something that has nothing to do with the topic. You are in effect saying that with your interpretation we could not have any laws that *coincided* with any religious laws.

"Under God" is superfluous to the pledge. It is not necessary when pledging allegience to the nation and flag. In fact, when those of other faiths (or lack thereof) make the pledge it would seem meaningless. Should they be denied a pledge that respects their faith (or lack thereof?) It's a rather simple case of one religion being elevated over others. However, I keep in mind this is about symbolism. Never get between the religious right and their empty symbolism.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's good that we have Gawain to determine what Jefferson meant, and the Constitution.

I dont think Jefferson wrote the first amendment. His letter on seperation of church abd state had nothing to do with the consitution. I explained what it was a bout.

One thing is clear to me. Religion and government don't mix,

Again the founding fathers thought just the opposite and since it was they who wrote the constitution I will go by their views not yours thank you. They know that a good religous base is neede for democracy to work. They believed that government should be a last resort to solving problems not the first. They didnt want a "CHURCH" making laws. Chritains do not constitute a church.

[Don Corleone]

I think Prole's right. I think the judge is trying to poke a finger in the eye of the religious half of this country, but he only really wins if they let him.

Despite what folks on the Left might actually want, as it stands today I'm still free to go to Church every Sunday, and last I checked, I could say "Thank God" or grace before a meal, even at work.

The thing about slippery slopes.... they're not. Dig your heels in where the fight really should be. We shouldn't have changed the pledge in the first place, but by the same token, the fact that the Democrats are making a big deal out of this shows where their agenda lies...

In the meantime, real news...

Extra!!! Extra!!!! Read all about it!! Republicans abandon any pretense at fiscal restraint, record low turnouts for conservative candidates predicted for next election!!!

[Xiahou]

All nice and cheery, Gawain, but the Constitution says what it says, and the Supreme Court has ruled on the finer points. So, to be fair, you are the one saying things that are asinine.

So what happens when the Supreme Court overturns this latest decision?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Pretty much zero chance of that happening. I doubt even the most liberal justices have the stones to declare the Pledge unconstitutional. Certainly nowhere near enough of them for a majority.

Remember, the 9th circuit has already ruled it unconstitutional.

Crazed Rabbit

[Xiahou]

Remember, the 9th circuit has already ruled it unconstitutional.

Crazed Rabbit

Yeah, the 9th Circuit- the most overturned of the circuit courts. Honestly, the only way it will stand is if the schools don't appeal it all the way up.



Edit: By liberal justices, I meant SCOTUS justices- just to be clear. The 9th Circus is capable of anything.

[Lemur]

I'd much more appreciate a nation that understood 'bigger fish to fry.'

Amen. Whoops, I don't mean ... I mean, by saying "amen," I'm not endorsing a specific ... meaning to say, I don't mean "amen" in its religious-specific ... oh, the hell with it.

[Papewaio]

I'm very glad the US and Aus don't make their dual-citizens choose one or the other when they turn 18.

Is that a subtle hint that you have dual citizenship?

[Xiahou]

Then the SCOTUS has spoken, now hasn't it?

Along with almost 9 out of every 10 Americans.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

One thing is clear to me. Religion and government don't mix,

Nor do they care. They just like it.

[Red Harvest]

Despite what folks on the Left might actually want, as it stands today I'm still free to go to Church every Sunday, and last I checked, I could say "Thank God" or grace before a meal, even at work.

Oh come on. The Left and most moderates don't really care what you do personally. It is the government endorsed public religious issues that are at the forefront.

It is real hard to take my fellow Christians seriously anymore.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Thanks to the wonderful propaganda effort by people like yourself, who seek to discredit the perfectly valid and perfectly constitutional "Wall" between church and state.

Except its not there. Maybe you wish it were but that does not make it so.

It shows a disrespect for the constitution, and a desire to promote your own religious agenda.

No it shows your lack of respect for the constitution . Either that or your lack of knowledge about it or american history. By the way I have no religous agenda. I hate organised relgion and have stated it ad nauseum

Pull the whole "The founding fathers say otherwise!" thing all you like, but SCOTUS and the Constitution have spoken on that matter.

SCOTUS also upheld slavery. Does that mean the constitution does? No where in the constitution is their any mention of seperation of church and state nevermind a wall. In fact the phrase came from a preacher.

While I agree the issue named by the original poster is silly, that is no less silly than violating the constitution to add the "God Blurb" to the Pledge just for the sake of some international pissing contest with Russia.

The god blurb does not violate the constitution. Making it against the law to add or say it certainly does violate the constitution.

[Xiahou]

It shows a disrespect for the constitution, and a desire to promote your own religious agenda.

That's very much in the eye of the beholder. I could easily apply the same statement to you.

You seem to forget the fact that 'seperation of church and state' is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. In fact, Congress has opened each session with a prayer since its founding and our courts have a long history of invoking God and, of course, swearing on a bible. The text of the Constitution is quite clear...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

[Ronin]

can´t people just say the pledge without those 2 words?

seems like making a lot of fuss over something that can be dealt with very easily.

[Proletariat]

Is that a subtle hint that you have dual citizenship?

Indeed.

:reminisces about BBQ's at Christmas as a child spending time in Sydney, being the American cousin:

[Ja'chyra]

I'm going with the who cares crowd, but if it means that much to you then scrap it from schools and anyone who wants to say can say it at home before school starts.

[Adrian II]

I'd much more appreciate a nation that understood 'bigger fish to fry.'

The U.S. is a pretty big fish and its splash is felt in most faraway waters, except maybe deown unda. I say, why don't we all take Papewaio up on his offer and move to Strayler? Some of us could use some bloody mimmoth changes.

*Throws another cliche on the barbie*

[Proletariat]

Can I ref the Org's First Croc-Wrestling Bash?

I'm in. I hear Sydney throws a mean Mardi Gras.

[Don Corleone]

Oh come on. The Left and most moderates don't really care what you do personally. It is the government endorsed public religious issues that are at the forefront.

It is real hard to take my fellow Christians seriously anymore.

Well, that's good because I haven't taken you seriously for months.

Like I said, I don't consider the pledge to be an issue worthy of debating over. But don't tell me there isn't a move in this country to outlaw religion. Kids get sent home from school just for saying God bless you when somebody sneezes or wishing somebody a Merry Christmas. That doesn't sound like 'live and let live' to me.

By the way, Red, bonus points for misrepresenting my argument. I said "the Left". You subtly changed that to "the Left and moderates". I never said squat about moderates. Please reference what I say properly or don't reference it at all.

[Adrian II]

Can I ref the Org's First Croc-Wrestling Bash?

And here I ricckond you were do be da croc, Ma'am. Oath!

*Shoots monster hog*