VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:40:52 06/26/02 Wed
Author: Lafaux
Subject: Pledge Ruled Unconstitutional

By DAVID KRAVETS
The Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO (June 26) - For the first time ever, a federal appeals court Wednesday declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of the words ''under God'' added by Congress in 1954.

The ruling, if allowed to stand, means schoolchildren can no longer recite the pledge, at least in the nine Western states covered by the court.

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 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.

The government had argued that the religious content of ''one nation under God'' is minimal.

But the appeals court said that an atheist or a holder of certain non-Judeo-Christian beliefs could see it as an endorsement of monotheism.

''We are certainly considering seeking further review in the matter,'' Justice Department lawyer Robert Loeb said.

The 9th Circuit covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state. Those are the only states directly affected by the ruling.

However, the ruling does not take effect for several months, to allow further appeals. The government can ask the court to reconsider, or take its case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

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.

''I'm an American citizen. I don't like my rights infringed upon by my government,'' he said in an interview. Newdow called the pledge a ''religious idea that certain people don't agree with.''

The appeals court said that when President Eisenhower signed the legislation inserting ''under God'' after the words ''one nation,'' he wrote that ''millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.''

The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said students cannot hold religious invocations at graduations and cannot be compelled to recite the pledge. But when the pledge is recited in a classroom, a student who objects is confronted with an ''unacceptable choice between participating and protesting,'' the appeals court said.

''Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge,'' the court said.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> I don't have a problem with this ruling, although I'll probably always say *under God* as long as I live. The weird thing is that Eisenhower passed the proposal to add *under God* the year I started school! -- Margie, 11:09:38 06/27/02 Thu


[ Edit | View ]
[> [> I have a problem with ONE person making decisions that affect millions. -- Lafaux, 17:35:25 06/27/02 Thu


[ Edit | View ]

[> I Have a problem with the whole thing -- dd, 19:33:04 07/03/02 Wed

This guy tried this in FL with "In God We Trust" that is on our money. His case was thrown out of court.

He then used his daughter and make no mistake that is what he did. He stated in court papers that his daughter was single out and distressed about having to say the pledge and to utter two simple words Under God.

As he appeared on All the Sunday talk shows and nightly/morning news shows, he said it wa not about his daughter and did not want to answer any questions on how this was effecting her of how saying the pledge effects her. He stated over and over not to bring his daughter into this it was not about her. It was about having to say the words UNDER GOD.

Now I may be slow but his whole case was because his daughter had to say the pledge in school. Because his daughter had to say UNDER GOD. He brought his daughter into this he used her. Nothing more to stop the NATION from saying UNDER GOD nothing more.

It did not work in FL, but Hell 9th Circuit has it reputation as the most liberal court in the US. Thank GOD it is also the most over turned court in the US.


[ Edit | View ]


[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.