Pledge of Allegiance now illegal in CA schools!

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Capt. Charlie

Moderator Emeritus
Just heard on CNN, a federal district judge in CA (where else?) has just ruled it illegal for school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because of the phrase, "One nation, under God". :barf: :mad:
 
So if one stood up voluntarily and recited the pledge what would they do?

was unconstitutional not illegal.... details soon grrrrrrrrrr
 
Contact for the judge who issued the ruling:

Judge Karlton, Lawrence K.

Hinkle, Tim Secretary 916-930-4130 Fax: 916-491-3905
Rivas, Ana CRD 916-930-4133 Fax: 916-491-3934
 
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html

It really doesn't bother me that it was ruled as such. While it's a bit silly, it does make sense. Having a child recite the pledge does indeed require him to affirm a belief in "god". If you assume that it doesn't require such then you also assume that it doesn't require a child to affirm a belief that the nation is indivisible nor that it stands for liberty and justice for all.
 
The "under god" bit has only been there since the 50s (because apparently back then, you'd turn into a godless commie if you didn't recite a pledge every morning). Drop it, and there's no issue. What's wrong with saying the pledge just the way its socialist author intended? ;)

Eghad - There's no issue with kids chosing independently to say it. The issue is with the school forcing everyone to say it.
 
Thanks for the contact information.

Now I can express my support.

It was a wise decision, and it pleases me that we have such wisdom in our federal courts.
 
This puzzles me, because in an article I read it said that the judge was following the Ninth Circuit's Newdow ruling, which was overturned by the Supreme Court earlier this year as I recall.

Maybe since it was only overturned on Newdow's standing, rather than substance, the judge thinks that the substantive ruling of the Ninth Circuit still stands?
 
The Supremes denied Cert on the basis of standing and returned it to the 9th for determination based upon that finding.

The 9th never did a thing, which means their ruling still effectively stands, unless and until the Supremes censor the 9th.
 
Congress put in the "Under God" in the 50s to protect us from the godless Communists. Congress should just take it out already, and quit wasting everyone's time...

~Dan
 
While I agree that it wouldn't be such an issue without "under god".....it just wouldn't have the same flow to it, y'know. :p
 
Ninth Circuit's Newdow ruling, which was overturned by the Supreme Court earlier this year as I recall.
Click to expand...

IIRC, it was dismissed by the SCOTUS without being heard, because the petitioner (Father) didn't have legal custody of the Child on whose behalf the case was being pursued.

Strictly a technicality, with no ruling by the Supreme Court one way or another.

~Dan
 
Let's clarify terms here, because both the title and some of the posts here are misleading.

The Pledge is not illegal, not in the 9th Circuit or anywhere else. It's also not been "declared unconstitutional".

What has been declared unconstitutional is to require students in government schools to recite a pledge that has positive affirmation of a deity as part of the pledge. In other words, the government cannot make public school kids swear to, or acknowledge, a god they may or may not believe in.

I would think such a viewpoint would find nothing but approval from the Constitutionally-minded folks here...after all, do you really want the government to be able to make your kids acknowledge the existence of Allah, Buddha, Shiva, Zeus, or the Great Pumpkin?
 
*raises hand for the Great Pumpkin*

One nation, under the Great Pumpkin....!!!

I like it!!!

PS why would anyone email the Judge or call him to express their righteous rage or strong support for a ruling. hes a judge

WildhecallsitasheseesitAlaska
 
I've got no problem with the pledge being recited in public schools whether it refers to God, Allah, Buddha, Shiva, Zeus, the Great Pumpkin or no diety at all.

My only problem lies with compulsory recital of any pledge.

I don't care if The Pledge just says: "I pledge allegiance to the republic of the United States of America." Requiring it in school is unnecessary. Has nothing to do with any diety.

On the other hand if it isn't mandatory, I don't care if little Timmy will feel left out because everyone else is doing it - if it ain't required, it ain't a problem.
 
An announcement I just received by email subscription suggests that the Pledge is indeed banned, when it includes "under God".

I remember when the pledge was changed (old fart) and believe it was never proper in the first place. Think about it. Someone decided we weren't religious enough and decided that "under Allah" wasn't what they wanted. "Under God" or any name of a diety excludes people in my view, and on that basis I think it is inappropriate. It's a fact that the nation is very diverse, and everyone is to be represented. We don't all have religion in common. Government is not a tool for evangelism or for staking of territory by religious groups. Those who know no God or prefer to be private in their religion are not guests of the Judeo-Christians with religion on their sleeves. As citizens, they are equal.

FEDERAL COURT RULING ON ‘UNDER GOD’ IN PLEDGE SHOWS RESPECT FOR RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY, SAYS AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Public Schools Should Not Require Students To Affirm Belief In God In Order To Express Patriotism, Says Church-State Watchdog Group

A federal district court decision against use of “under God” in public school recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance shows respect for religious diversity, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled today in Sacramento, Calif., that public school sponsorship of the Pledge violates students’ right to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.”

“The court’s decision was correct as a matter of Establishment Clause jurisprudence,” said Americans United Legal Director Ayesha Khan. “The Constitution forbids government to intervene in religious matters.

“America is a very diverse nation,” Khan continued. “We have some 2,000 different denominations and faith groups, as well as many Americans who choose no religious path at all. It is wrong for public schools to ask students to affirm a religious belief in order to express their patriotism.”

Khan noted that some religious traditions use different names for the deity, while other faiths believe in more than one god. Others regard governmental appropriation of God as theologically unacceptable.

“America faces many challenges today,” Khan concluded. “We can best meet those challenges if we are united as a people. Americans should never be made to feel excluded from our national life because they have the ‘wrong’ views about religion.”

Today’s decision came in a lawsuit brought by Michael Newdow on behalf of three California parents and their children. (Newdow v. Congress of the United States of America)

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
 
I also support taking 'under God' out. Whether a person is religious or not, the phrase does not need to be there.

Then again, I believe in showing my patriotism through acts, not through reciting words.

Besides, why pledge to a flag?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top