Federal judge in S. F. declares it unconstitutional to recite the pledge

[4_Legs_Good]

CNN Breaking:

> BREAKING NEWS AP: Federal judge in San Francisco declares it unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Details soon.

Edit: Slightly more information

By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
9 minutes ago



SAN FRANCISCO - The Pledge of Allegiance was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist whose previous attempt to get the pledge out of public schools was rejected by the

[Horse with no Name]

1. Oh this is going to go over well

NOT,lol.

[shadowknows69]

2. can i get restitution for years of unconstitutional acts

I was forced to perform?

[leftofcool]

48. depends of what you were performing............

and midnight toking doesn't count.

Left of Cool

[4_Legs_Good]

A little early, though, to be a wedge issue for the conservatives to

exploit in 2006, no?

They can drag anything out, I guess.

david

[jarab]

73. LINK:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html

...O...

[Seabiscuit]

144. San Francisco Chronicle link:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/09/14/MNpledge14.DTL

[MissMillie]

221. "under god" or no "under god"

why should any student have to pledge allegiance to anything in order to get an education at a public school?

[LifeDuringWartime]

237. bingo

;)

[hogwyld]

226. Good!

It's about time we got G*d out of our schools. Now we just need to get him off of our money, and out of our country alltogether including the fundies themselves, and everything will be hunky dory.

[meganmonkey]

3. Oh, my! And a federal judge, at that...

I wonder who appointed him or her?

Details! Details!

:rofl:

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[4_Legs_Good]

9. Great distraction to be sure!

George Jr. went from Plame to Sheehan to Katrina. He needs something to hide behind now.

Lack of loyalty to a flag is a good distraction, I suppose.

david

[Skip Intro]

13. yes, yes, yes

they just gotta confirm roberts now

one stunt after another

[patrice]

49. Yes, like admitting your mistakes, without taking blame.

[bluesidebeckonsme]

26. Timing's too fishy

I totally agree the timing is too convenient. Just because a judge was appointed by Carter or Clinton, doesn't mean they are not being used by the Karl Rove political machine and getting a payoff somewhere.

Interesting how quiet a lot of those MA judges are now that election time is over.

Just wait for Roberts to state some "heroic" statement in the hearings about how he is oppposed to this.

[shrike]

238. Glad I'm not the only one who thinks that

Still, the GOP wouldn't be able to ride this into the 2006 elections -- would they?

[beam me up scottie]

241. Yes, he's OBVIOUSLY a Rovian plant...

:eyes:

"Real" amerikkkans don't care about the Constitution or the First Amendment, after all.

All that matters is winning the next election.

[shrike]

249. Sigh ...

I don't care one way or the other about the pledge of allegiance, just as I don't care much about the 2nd amendment. (The idea being that if the government's going to get us, they'll get us and your AK-47 won't help much.)

I also don't think it's going to cost anybody the election because there are so many other wedge issues to get hysterical about: gays, guns (See above), flag-burning etc.

Americans would rather get upset, it seems, about two words in a pledge that is basically meaningless anyway, than about the fact that nearly 13 percent of us live in poverty these days.

We Americans. We're so easy ...

[beam me up scottie]

253. Some of us are capable of caring about more than one thing at a time.

Unlike the morans. for example, that think GLBT people are selfish for wanting equal rights.

I guess it's not a "big deal" to some straight people.

Go figure.

[shrike]

254. See my above comment n/t

[CarbonDate]

262. So you don't care about gay rights. Got it.

What do you care about?

[LeighAnn]

37. Yeah, but the fundies don't realize it violates the Law of God

Vowing devotion to an inanimate object is called "idolatry", and people who were really interested in pleasing the God they say they worship wouldn't have any part of saying the pledge of allegiance in the first place.

[patrice]

50. Freedom is Essential to Salvation.

[LeighAnn]

55. Doubt it. Plenty of repenting and salvation in prisons

I'll bet religion is what keeps a lot of people sane in situations of confinement and enslavement.

Freedom is preferable, though, I'll admit.

[patrice]

57. Maybe my religion is that dream of Freedom

Choosing "goodness" can be free-ing.

I have a lot of hope for us still.

[Toots]

76. It isn't just the flag but to the Republic for which it stands..UNDER GOD

Why not just eliminate those two words and all would be fine, after all they are not a part of the original pledge?

[stevebreeze]

191. yes it was stuffed in to separate us from the "Godless commies"

One years after my birth. Since I am older the the two added word to the pledge I do not feel bound by them.

[deacon2]

152. Idolatry is allowed as long as it's directed toward Bush n/t

That's First Cadillacians 1:5-6. It's in the new "GOP All-You-Can-Eat Buffet Bible." On sale now at Wal-Mart.

[kestrel91316]

187. Don't both the Amish and Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to say the pledge?

[benburch]

5. I can hear the cry now;

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.

[AllegroRondo]

6. Heres the much needed distraction from the Katrina fiasco

lets see how much air time this gets from the Rep media

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. So a federal Judge appointed by Jimmy Carter is taking orders from Rove?

:shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

54. Didn't you get the memo?

Everything that makes the news now will be a sinister Rovian conspiracy to distract from Katrina.

Just like all the headlines that were engineered to distract from Camp Casey...

:eyes:

[AllegroRondo]

the timing of the ruling wasn't intentional

but the media and radio airbags will take it and run with it.

[shrike]

239. Y'know, it wouldn't surprise me

if it were. But nothing surprises me these days.

[beam me up scottie]

243. Nothing surprises me either.

There's never a shortage of tin foil and ignorance.

[Squatch]

7. To recite or require to recite?

[4_Legs_Good]

11. That is the question, but I believe that it's already illegal to require

[lynne]

70. Exactly -

- I have advised my children to recite the pledge as they see fit, including GOD if they want to.

Remember that the right to practice religion is also protected by the constitution, as well as free speech. Guess everyone should just recite it as they desire.

[July]

118. Nobody hassles the kids who pledge, with or without God.

The court cases don't create problems in school for those kids who want to pledge. They are free to do so, including "under God" if they wish.

The pledge itself does create problems for kids who don't want to say it, even though their right not to has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Even though people say that kids don't have to say it if they don't want to, in real life some kids are criticized, ostracized, made to stand anyway, and even punished.

[lynne]

148. I don't believe that aspect was involved in this case -

- though I do understand what you're saying. Those children who do not wish to say the pledge should not be required to do so. As most schools now have some sort of bully-rule, they shouldn't be picked on. Hopefully.

But, quite honestly, that's sometimes the price we pay for standing up for what we believe in. The children who wish to recite the pledge have freedom of speech protection to do so. Those who do not recite the pledge are protected, as well. And they will learn a valuable lesson that standing up for ones beliefs - especially when those beliefs are not popular - is not easy but is important enough that they need to be willing to accept any criticism that may come afterwards.

[July]

157. Freedom of speech doesn't require a ritual in school, though,

I object to the pledge's being a part of the school day. If kids want to freely speak about their loyalty to their country, they may. No daily ritual is necessary for that, and other kids (who may also feel loyalty to their country but don't want to swear an oath, or to swear one that includes an acknowledgement of a god) are not then singled out.

My kids have no trouble standing up for what they believe, and they are very good at defending themselves. They know what they think and why they think it. I don't think it is realistic to just say "they shouldn't be picked on." The people who picked on my two children were a teacher and the principal. In other words, adults who should know better and who even are trained about these issues.

I'd like to think that the children who want to pledge could also defend their beliefs about it as my children can. But remembering my own childhood, observing children saying the pledge, and reading about and experiencing in my own family the criticism rained down on those who opt out, I don't see it as much more than jingoism most of the time, and the attitude toward those opting out as an aggressive "love it or leave it" stance.

How do you think the average child would feel if the principal of his school came in a room and yelled at him, "Maybe I can't make you say the Pledge of Allegiance, but I CAN make you stand up for it!" That's what my son's principal did to him in front of his entire class. She was wrong about her "right" to make him stand up, by the way. She didn't make my son change his mind, but she did make him stand. How far do you suggest my son should have gone when the principal of the school was not defending his rights? I view that kind of behavior as an abuse of authority. Yeah, the school has a "bully-rule," too. Guess it doesn't apply to adults.

My other son had something similar happen. Luckily, he was in high school and was even better at defending himself than his brother was when the principal went after him (he was 12 at the time). Why should my kids have to go through this kind of thing when their right NOT to participate was affirmed by the Supreme Court 62 years ago?

[Viking12]

149. To have state actors (teachers) leading the recital

Requirement is already off-limits; see West VA Board of Ed v. Barnett (1943). The current method of indoctrination has teachers leading "voluntary" recitals. Consistent w/ other establishment clause cases, the school sponsored under God would be impermissible under the latest ruling.


I haven't read the decision but I'm kids would still be free to recite under their own volition.

[onenote]

8. lousy timing

This is one of those issues that I hate. I think requiring the recitation of the pledge is unconstitutional. However, I think you have to pick your battles wisely, and this is one that needs to be achieved incrementally or you end up alienating people (IMHO).

It will be interesting,however, to see if any of the repugs who have been arguing that Roberts shouldn't be asked his views on specific issues will now decide that they want him to give his views on this one...

onenote

[JDPriestly]

18. Agreed!

[Norquist Nemesis]

46. Sessions just brought it up in his questioning

Said he wasn't going to ask Roberts' views on it because 'that issue will certainly be in front of him', but wanted his assurances about setting out a "body of law" for people to be able to exercise their right of free speech including religion.

[Tesha]

166. It's always lousy timing when people insist on their rights. (NT)

[SomewhereOutThere424]

10. Shouldn't have anything to do with the constitution to begin with

If someone is patriotic, they should have the freedom to say it, with or without the mention of god. If someone doesn't, then they should have the right to be excused to not hear it if it's that important. It should have never reached a level of constitution where a federal judge had to rule on it. Last I checked, what you do for a country shows patriotism, not standing up in school and reciting allegiance to a country with or without mentioning god.

To me it's a lot like saying they made it unconstitutional or constitutional to blow your nose in class, because some people think it's necessary to keep your hygiene, but others find it offensive. Just not a huge issue, in compare to other things. Schools should never force something to be done to begin with. This is what causes egocentric patriots and dissenters to the flag, by forcing it on people.

[Chiyo-chichi]

12. Lawrence Karlton

http://www.kxtv.com/storyfull1.asp?id=13086

A federal judge in San Francisco ruled this morning that it is unconstitutional for public school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, because of its reference to one nation "under God."

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kartlon ruled he is bound by the precedent set by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

[meganmonkey]

14. He was appointed by Carter

Senior District Court Judge Lawrence K. Karlton (LKK)

Born 1935 in Brooklyn, NY

Federal Judicial Service:

U. S. District Court, Eastern District of California
Nominated by Jimmy Carter on June 5, 1979, to a seat vacated by Thomas J. MacBride; Confirmed by the Senate on July 23, 1979, and received commission on July 24, 1979. Served as chief judge, 1983-1990. Assumed senior status on May 28, 2000.

Education:

Columbia Law School, J.D., 1958

Professional Career:

1958-1960
U.S. Army

1960-1962
Civilian legal officer, Sacramento Army Depot

1962-1976
Private practice, Sacramento, California

1976-1979
Judge, Superior Court of California, Sacramento County


http://207.41.18.73/caed/staticOther/page_516.htm

[Chiyo-chichi]

16. he was appointed by Carter. eom

[kestrel91316]

188. I thought the actual ruling said it was unconstitutional for children

to be FORCED to recite the pledge?

[Pale_Rider]

15. I say revert to the original Pledge of Allegiance ...

'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

-- Francis Bellamy, Baptist Minister and Christian Socialist

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

Though I would actually prefer ...

'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'

... and we can be all done about this Pledge controversy.

[Book Lover]

17. Should be "unconstitutional to recite the *modified* pledge"

Nothing wrong (well, except that it's a ludicrous excerise in wasting students' time and trivializing patriotism) with the original pledge.

[4_Legs_Good]

20. I've never been a fan of "to the flag"

If you wanna pledge loyalty to the Republic and to the thing the flag symbolizes, be my guest, but the sacredness of the flag itself? Naw.

david

[Book Lover]

21. Good point

And that I believe was the point of the suit filed in the 30s or 40s by Jehovah's Witnesses (if memory serves) - that the pledge amounted to idol worship, because you speak the words to an inanimate object.

How many other countries require this kind of exercise of their student bodies,. I wonder? Off to google...

[TrogL]

Idolatry

[brentspeak]

19. What moron brought up this suit?

Someone who wants to create a wedge issue for the next 10 years, or someone with too much time on their hands?

[sybylla]

27. Obviously some athiest fool who thinks they actually have rights

I mean, WTF were they thinking?

[brentspeak]

43. 'Fool' is correct

Michael Newdow, the individual who was using his daughter to fight his own cause in the court of law. Needless to say, it's not Newdow who has to recite the pledge.

As for "rights" - I would think his daughter would have the right not to be used by her own father.

[sybylla]

105. I'll join you in singing that chorus as soon as the fundie nut jobs

stop using their kids to force creationism, junk science and abstinence only education into my schools.

[brentspeak]

174. Different topic. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[sybylla]

183. You're assuming I agree that Newdow used his daughter for anything

You no doubt have a "brilliant" and "well-reasoned" opinion on this and you are obviously unmovable in regards to Mr. Newdow. So I just skipped over the pointless headbanging part.

So let me see if I get this - anyone who believes anything different than the pap purveyed by the standard religions of the world should just sit on their hands, be good little boys and girls, and don't trouble the "true believers" with having to acknowledge their presence or extend to them any rights.

Got it.

Oh, yeah. I forgot to add that even though rights are extended to us "non-believers" in the constitution and its bill of rights, we will have to ask for them in a court of law before they are extended to us, and will only be granted if the believers in the major religions of the world who run our judicial system think we ought to have them.

With liberty and justice for all*
*Not available to all residents. Offer may vary in some areas. Other restrictions may apply.

[July]

119. Maybe Newdow, as a parent, has a problem w/forced oaths.

He's doing what he thinks is right.

[beam me up scottie]

123. Forced oath.

That is exactly what it is.
How Third Reichish.

[BurningDog]

131. How is it a forced oath

when you have the option of not saying it?

[beam me up scottie]

134. I DIDN'T have the option.

And neither did she.

[July]

138. That's why it seems creepy to me.

I'd rather see kids really reading and learning about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (especially the Bill of Rights).

I care about the country, but this effort to make kids swear loyalty to the Fatherland gives me chills. The fact that it's just a rote exercise for many kids makes it even worse. The fact that opting out is not respected in some schools is a problem, too. As I've said, I'd like to see students learn the principles the nation was founded on rather than see them chant in unison to the flag.

[beam me up scottie]

143. The pledge is just another tool for the reichwing.

This is from the SF Chronicle:

California law requires that public elementary schools conduct “appropriate patriotic exercises” at the beginning of the school day.

In a final footnote, Karlton mused that the “ultimate resolution” of the issue “depends on the shifting, subjective sensibilities of any five members of the High Court, leaving those of us who work in the vineyard without guidance. … As preposterous as it might seem, given the lack of boundaries, a case could be made for substituting “under Christ” for “under God,” … thus marginalizing not only atheists and agnostics, but also Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Confucians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious adherents.”

Somehow, I don't think this last possible modification is out of the question.

Good for you for taking a stand and doing what's right for your kids.
My mom and dad did the same thing and it's one of the most valuable things they ever taught me.

[Pachamama]

212. I grew up in Germany - they look down upon this "reciting" of allegiance &

to the flag....

You see, they kinda have been there, done that....it led to some bad stuff....:eyes:

[kestrel91316]

189. In this case Newdow is the attorney representing several sets of

unhappy parents. You got a problem with their choice of attorney?

His original suit was thrown out due to his lack of "standing".

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

224. Damn parents standing up for their kids

Fighting for his daughter's rights is now the same thing as using his daughter. :eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

244. Really-they should teach them to roll over and smile like real Amerikkkans

Don't want the kids growing up thinking they have rights or anything.
:sarcasm:

[brentspeak]

259. His daughter wasn't interested in the lawsuit

She's not an atheist, and didn't ask her father to file the suit. That's what you could call "using your children".

[0rganism]

44. We'll all have a lot less rights after this hits the Supreme Court

I can't imagine the Roberts court being more sympathetic to separation than the Rehnquist court was.

[beam me up scottie]

56. I agree !!!

Everybody knows atheists are supposed to just sit there and shut up.

How dare we?

Standing up for the Bill of Rights is damned unpatriotic, not to mention inconvenient !

[salvorhardin]

61. Hell yeah!

What the hell was this fool thinking that there establishment clause gave them a right not to pledge an oath to a magic sky fairy they didn't believe in!? Silly athIEst.


I wonder what the athEIsts think?

[bluesidebeckonsme]

160. Looks like Rove is back from vacation

is it really going to effect a kid if they say or if it's unconstitutional?
There goes a some of the public's greatly needed attention on Bush's latest screw ups\scandals\schemes..ie Plame, Katrina, Gas Price Gouging, Roberts.

[PaDem]

178. agree........

this stinks for progressives. This is the crap that tables real issues like poverty and war for many voters. I can't wait to hear about the "secular humanists" trying to take over the country, compromising our "values" and indoctrinating our children tomorrow. This is cannon fodder for the conservative movement. Pisses me off.

[bee]

22. can we get this judge to rule on the patriot act? n/t

[Journeyman]

23. Let's just use a "Reader's Digest" version of the pledge. . .

"I pledge allegiance to liberty and justice for all."


Short, non-controversial, useful for all peoples on the planet.

[Zhade]

69. I like it!

No forced "acknowledgment" of a god no one's ever proven to exist, no loyalty oath to a swatch of fabric whose siblings have flown over countless atrocities, no status symbol for faux-patriot jingoists - just a pledge to ideals we're SUPPOSED to stand for in this country.

Short, sweet, right on!

[kestrel91316]

190. LOL, PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[zum]

211. Why?

Any pledge is jingoism with which some percentage of the population won't agree. If you force them to recite it, does it enforce sincerity? Just cut a long story short and shoot anyone who doesn't recite it because that's an obvious signal of disagreement, not to mention anarchy and treason...

[question everything]

24. Link from yahoo

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050914/ap_on_re_us/pledge_of_allegiance

[wicket]

25. hoo boy

this is going to get ugly.

[Judi Lynn]

28. Judge rules Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional in public schools

Judge rules Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional in public schools
By DAVID KRAVETS, AP Legal Affairs Writer

Wednesday, September 14, 2005
(09-14) 11:28 PDT San Francisco (AP) --

Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.
(snip/...)

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/14/state/n111253D61.DTL

[TallahasseeGrannie]

29. This is HUGE. n/t

And I totally agree. Under God was added late anyway. So let's get back to the original. And if a child doesn't want to say it he/she shouldn't have to. Period.

I'm a teacher and I never make a big deal about it.

[The empressof all]

30. This is a good ruling

However it will be spun into a tight weave to distract us from all else that currently ails our country.

[MrModerate]

32. This could be huge . . .

But then again it could just be another issue swirling around the establishment of religion clause. Remember the recent decision that allowed religious iconography to be put up at taxpayer expense as long as there was some sort of historical context to justify its appearance.

And with "Mr. Piety" John Roberts as Chief Justice, don't be shocked if that "context" test becomes easier and easier to pass.

[Historic NY]

39. This should set off a firestorm...........

I am neutral on the "pledge", having grown up with it in both public & Catholic schools. I understand the change made in 1954 adding "under god". Personally there are many other more important things that need to be done. This ruling unfortunately will only change the rhetoric from current issues and add fuel to the conservative agenda.

[slackmaster]

31. This sounds ridiculous on the surface

I can see how it would be unconstitutional to compel someone to recite the PoA, but doesn't the First Amendment guarantee the right of a person to choose to recite it?

I need much more information.

[patcox2]

34. It cannot be compulsory.

That was settled long, long ago, it is unconstitutional to force kids to say it.

This is just wonderful, though, a fringe issue that no well-adjusted person would give a shit about, and its the precise reason democrats lose elections.

I put learning to deal with the pledge up there as one of the most important lessons to learn in life.

If you are at all smart, you are going to find that every single day of your life you are going to be a part of a group that is doing something stupid that you disagree with. You are going to have to learn to appease an asshole boss, to get an A from an idiot teacher with whom you strongly disagree.

You can respond like a fucking egomaniac asshole and make a federal case out of it just to vindicate your hyper-developed senses of injury and moral rightness, or you can actually get along with your fellow men and women, despite minor irritations like the pledge.

[slackmaster]

35. Well said patcox2

Kudos to you for having a spine and some clarity of thought.

[Zhade]

72. Yeah, how dare atheists think they have rights!

Sorry to break it to you, but for many of us, it IS a big deal. I do not want my son forced to "affirm" the existence of a god never proven to exist through forced loyalty oaths to the flag, if he decides for himself that this god stuff is nonsense.

Sorry you don't find it important. I do, and I applaud this ruling.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

98. Ah, but per this ruling, we DON'T have to put up with it.

And what's more, we shouldn't have to. Having "under god" in the pledge is flatly unconstitutional.

You can whine about those of us who appreciate our First Amendment rights all you want, but we're not going to sit in the back of the bus just because you have a better seat.

With all due respect, FUCK that.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

97. Are we sure we know what this ruling means?

I agree that it's wrong to force someone to say a pledge, but is it constitutional to FORBID a person to say it?

[beam me up scottie]

108. what ?

You're not one of those people that thinks we're trying to stop you from praying in public, are you?

[lastliberalintexas]

112. It's the way it's being reported

According to a couple of articles, the court supposedly ruled that the pledge could not be recited in public schools, meaning that an individual who voluntarily decided to recite the pledge would be committing an unconstitutional act. That's ridiculous, as it is just as much a 1st amendment concern for the individual to be able to say the pledge as it is for me to not have to.

However, what was likely decided by the court was the propriety of an organized, class- or school-wide recitation of the pledge.


And all of this of course assumes the standard time, place and manner constraints that the Court has placed on speech at school throughout the years.

[beam me up scottie]

114. They will try to spin in like the school prayer ruling.

They will say that their precious little patriots are forbidden to pray or say the pledge in school because of the godless democrats.

We can't control the spin.

[lastliberalintexas]

117. I'm not talking about the spin from the repubs

I'm talking about the (very likely) inaccurate way in which it is even being reported. :shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

121. This is from the CNN article:

The decisions by Karlton and the 9th Circuit conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.

[slackmaster]

127. As I said in my original reply, we need more information

The way this is being reported is pretty confusing.

[slackmaster]

124. I'm responding to the subject and wording of the OP...

"Federal judge in S. F. declares it unconstitutional to recite the pledge"

Taken literally that means the ruling prohibits someone from voluntarily saying the Pledge.

You're not one of those people that thinks we're trying to stop you from praying in public, are you?

Depends on who you mean by "we". I think anyone who would restrict free speech in that manner is fucked up in the head.

[beam me up scottie]

137. I was referring to the christian underground and like minded zealots

who claim we godless heathens won't ALLOW their brats to pray in school.

[slackmaster]

139. A pox on their houses

I've never accused you or anyone else on DU of having such an intention.

BTW I am agnostic.

[beam me up scottie]

146. Oh I know. I've run into you before.

I think we've always been on the same side of the issues.

"California law requires that public elementary schools conduct “appropriate patriotic exercises” at the beginning of the school day."

Does this sound like something free Americans should be required to do?
Sounds very Orwellian to me.
Frighteningly so.

That was from the SF Chronicle report.

Peace!

[Zhade]

110. I'm guessing the ruling is being spun that way as we speak.

I'll have to check, but I think it's affirming the right not to say it.

If it DOES forbid one from voluntarily saying it, that would be wrong.

I kind of doubt that was the ruling, but I'll look at it closely.

[DubyaSux]

173. Very good response...

....kudos to a well placed point.

If we want to see why the Democratic party has not been in power for so long, just read this thread. I hate freepers as much as the next guy and I'm not terribly religious. But this country was founded with a belief in God being more than incidental:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The Declaration of Independance amplified a belief in God in the spirit of goodness. And the Constitution prevented the government from forcing their version of religion down our throats.

So, after all this time, some bitter cynical bastard decides to divine his hatred at the expense of the many. And what do the democrats do? Rejoice!

What's next? Renounce our independance and let Tony Blair rule us because we declared our independance unconstitutionally?

This will get overturned and we'll look like God-haters as usual. I don't disagree with the clear seperation of church and state, but this is nit-picky and ridiculous that does nothing to advance a real cause. And it divides us. Because I think it's bullshit. If you don't like it, don't participate. Nobody's forcing you to.

[onager]

214. The Declaration of IndependEnce...

...is not the law of the land. It's a fine historical document, but all it did was announce the reasons the American colonies wanted to break away from Great Britain.

It has zero meaning in American law, which is exactly why our elected officials and military personnel don't swear an oath to defend the Declaration Of IndependEnce.

BTW, "Nature's God" is a pretty loose phrase. It could mean just about anything, including Zeus or the theory of evolution.

Now find me a mention of God or Jesus or Xianity in the Constitution, which IS the supreme law of the land.

Here's a hint: there are only two, both exclusionary. Article 6 prohibits any religious test for public office.

The other is the First Amendment, which you may have vaguely heard of. Though I'm inclined to doubt it, since you're so eager to pimp off the rights of religious minorities.

The Declaration of Independance amplified a belief in God in the spirit of goodness.

How so? Is there a Secret Xian Sermon buried somewhere in the Declaration? Man, that would have made a great plot twist in National Treasure.

Anyway, the Declaration did no such thing. It was mostly written by Thomas Jefferson, who correctly noted once that the Xian superstition was no better than any other religious superstition. He also said a lot of other snarky things about Xianity, available at your local Google.

[formerrepuke]

33. This is an unfortunate judgment: Judge Karlton has made a decision

which will be exploited to the hilt by right-wingers..and he should know that. Not that I'm suggesting the right needs to be treated with kid gloves, mind you. Whats more, I have no problem with children saying the Pledge. They should be permitted to stand in silence, or refrain from saying the words "under God." There is such a thing as going too far.. and this is yet another wedge issue that will further damage Democratic credibility, especially considering the origin of his judicial appointment (by Carter).

[Subliminal]

38. This isn't good

Every time a liberal does something like this, we lose seats both chambers of congress. Strap up the seat belts fellow DUers, we're losing more seats in 2006.

[Pastiche423]

53. Link or proof of your statement...

"Every time a liberal does something like this, we lose seats both chambers of congress."

Otherwise, that's a load of crap.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Subliminal]

163. Here's Proof

1994 Assault Weapons Ban
2002 9th Circuit declares pledge unsonstitutional
2005 Federal judge declares pledge unconstituional

Comparing this to the Civil Rights Act is comparing apples and oranges. Guns and the wording of the pledge are trivial issues in the larger scheme of things, yet they continue costing us. Keep denying it, and we'll keep losing.

[Zhade]

75. That's how some felt about the Civil Rights Act.

Doesn't mean the CRA shouldn't have been passed, just because a bunch of racist fucks can't get over the fact that they aren't better human beings than non-whites.

Upholding the Bill of Rights and the Constitution can hardly be considered going too far.

[digno dave]

40. GREAT, another diversion from reality for the masses

[The Witch]

41. Sessions is already bringing it up in the hearings n/t

[Algorem]

42. Change it to one nation under billionaires.

[KnaveRupe]

45. Good ruling, bad timing.

This is something the RWers will rally around. And just when we had some of them finally waking up to the hideous, Lovecraftian, Evil-with-a-capital-E that is the Bush administration.

As much as I think the decision is correct, and as much as I admire Newdow's moxie (and chutzpah), I HATE that this is coming down the pike right now.

[Zhade]

79. If Americans get so bent out of shape over a ruling...

...that upholds the First Amendment and the Constitution, to the point where they forget about being lied into an endless illegal war, blatant cronyism, and the horrific response to Katrina (to cite examples), then they deserve the government they fucking get!

[lastliberalintexas]

109. If this is being reported accurately,

this ruling does not "uphold" the 1st Amendment, but rather violates it. Just as you and your son already cannot be forced to recite the pledge (thank you, Mr. Justice Jackson), neither should someone be forbidden from saying the pledge if s/he so desires. And at least according to the articles thus far, the ruling supposedly denies the right of an individual to say the pledge.

Now I personally doubt that is the real ruling. It is more likely that the court decided that the school could not engage in an organized rendition of the pledge due to the 1st amendment concerns. But of course that's not what is being reported by our lovely media.

[Zhade]

111. You and I are on the exact same page, and I fully agree.

Such a ruling would be flawed, and I doubt that was the ruling.

[Viking12]

154. The history of "journalism" on this issue is abominable

I sure they've misrepresented the actual holding.

[WinkyDink]

233. It's about SCHOOLS

And school personnel most certainly CAN prevent students from talking out of turn. It's done ALL THE TIME, and has nothing to do with "free speech" and everything to do with class discipline.
"Johnny, what's the answer to number 4?"
"I pledge allegiance..."
"WRONG! It's pi! SIT DOWN!"

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

151. I happen to believe there is NO such thing as bad timing for a good ruling

eom

[bunkerbuster1]

47. So now all the local Fundies can get out their "one nation UNDER GOD"

t-shirts.

How nauseating.

[patrice]

52. Freedom is Essential to Salvation.

Freedom from everything . . . .

"Good" must be a choice.

Harebo!

[Oeditpus Rex]

51. 'A man gets from a symbol the meaning he puts into it

and what is one person's comfort and inspiration is another's jest and scorn." ~ W. Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnett, 1943 (in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that W. Va. could not make the Pledge of Allegiance part of school curriculum).

"To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds." ~ ibid

More here: http://www.tnellen.com/05iths/pledge.html

[WeRQ4U]

58. Deleted. Misread article. n/t

[July]

66. What decision do you mean?

I am aware of two SC decisions regarding the pledge, both of which say that one is not required to say it or even to stand, bow one's head, etc.

Are those what you're referring to?

[WeRQ4U]

71. Actually I re-read the article and realized I misread it. Deleted my post

Actually though, the last time the Supreme Corut dealt with this issue, they dismissed it without addressing it.

[July]

78. But the issue of having to say the pledge or not has been decided.

The first decision was issued on Flag Day in 1943 (during WWII, obviously), and came down clearly for the right of students not to say the pledge.

A later decision clarified the first further by deciding that students cannot be forced to "change position" -- e.g., stand up, put hand over heart, bow head, etc. during the pledge.

That didn't stop my son's middle school principal from telling him she couldn't make him say the pledge, but could make him stand up.

And that happens all over the country.

[WeRQ4U]

81. No, I know that THAT issue has already been decided.

I was confused mainly because the article stated something about standing to sue and the previous Court opinion had to do with standing as well. I didn't realize, however, that they were different issues regarding standing.

[Zhade]

59. Good. It IS unconstitutional to have "under god" in there.

And it's just distasteful, considering how the Klan helped it get in there in the 50s in the first place.

I applaud this ruling.

[Az]

60. We constantly cry out for Dems to have a spine

But not this spine. Having a spine means standing up for things that may not be popular. Having a spine means speaking up for what is right.

As an acknowledgement of political expediency one need not base ones entire platform on ridding the pledge of the questionable phrase. But stand up for whats right when asked.

This is the very reason people don't trust Dems. They more often will say what is politically expedient rather than what they believe is right.

[Zhade]

90. AZ!

Where ya been, buddy? Haven't seen you in a while. Too busy watching anime? :)

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Az]

129. I read my post again

And I am at a loss as to what caused such a reaction from you. I never suggested that this be the only issue pressed forward or even the most important. I merely suggested that having a spine means standing by the things you believe in and not selling them out simply because they are politically advantageous to do so.

This seems to be people's chief concern with Dems. They really don't know what they stand for anylonger. They seem to stand for whatever the polls show it is advantageous to stand for. And that simply leaves people thinking the worst of them.

[mike_c]

62. good decision....

Get religion out of public schools, period.

[leveymg]

63. LINK, PLEASE

[TOOLZ]

64. NOW LET'S GET GOD OFF OUR DAMN MONEY!! n/t

[StudentOfDarrow]

65. Interesting.

This is good in itself, but the timing is horrible. Bush and Roberts can rally this to their advantage like nobody's business.

[bluestateguy]

68. Onward, Patrotism Police!!

I suppose the decision is legally correct, but I fail to see what harm is done by the phrase "Under God". It's kind of like "God we Trust" on money: meaningless and benign.

Sometimes you just have to punt on the peripheral issues and fight the battles that are both winnable and worth worth fighting.

Now the right wing patriotism police are going to go into a complete conniption.

[Zhade]

93. Upholding the First Amendment and Constitution is a peripheral issue?

Wonders never cease.

[beam me up scottie]

100. Is that what you tell minorities ?

Feminists ?

GLBT people ?

What "harm" is done by going along with the bigots ?

Only fight the battles we can win ?

Nice.

[sysoprock]

74. Thanks again SF!!! Rally up the conservatives for '06!!!!

I think Mayor Newsom's conducting of Gay Marriages really helped mobilize the Republican base to get out and vote in '04. By putting a Gay Marriage prop on just about every state's ballot, tons of people got out to vote that normally wouldn't have.

DING! Bush wins.

I don't agree with this decision, if the family doesn't want their child to be subjected to the pledge of allegiance they have the right to remove their child from the classroom during the time that it is said. They also have the right to home school their child, or send their child to a private school.

Saying that the entire school cannot say the pledge because of the words "under God" is bullshit.

Even if I agreed that this is a good decision, don't you think there are bigger and more important things to be taken care of?

Poverty in this country is going through the roof, the cost of living is skyrocketing in comparison to increases in wages. Does Mr. Newdow care, does he even know?

Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, probably has no fucking clue about what it's currently like to poor. So while he stands up on his soapbox and get a little bit of press coverage, millions of poor Americans could potentially be paying for it with a highly mobilized response against them in the '06 election.

Newdow's daughter had to say the pledge of allegiance, boo fucking hoo, mabye when we stop pulling the bodies of other little girls out of the streets of New Orleans and Baghdad we can begin to address Newdow's little problem.

[RedEarth]

92. I agree with you 100%.....

too many other things to worry about....damn sure don't need another wedge issue.

[beam me up scottie]

106. RIGHT! BURN THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION !!! PRAISE JEEBUS !!

As long as YOUR rights aren't infringed upon, that's all that matters.

And, by the way, I'm fucking poor and I still give a shit about my rights.

[July]

132. The importance of other issues doesn't make this one go away.

For many of us, it is important, and talking about it doesn't take away from the importance of other matters. This issue, seemingly trivial to some people, is about our basic freedoms.

This is one issue among the many that deserve discussion.

Why do we even have to think about taking our kids out of the classroom? Why is this a daily exercise in schools? The effect of it is to create problems for the minority who don't want to participate.

Students CAN pray in schools, as long as it is not a school-organized or -led effort. If they want to make an oath to the flag, with or without mention of God, they can do that, too, on their own, without the teacher's help. Why does my kid have to leave and/or be criticized because he doesn't want to do it? And I'm not speaking in the abstract here, it's happened to both of my children.

[Voltaire99]

242. Nah. Screw the pledge, and screw religion in schools, too.

Centrist Democrat hand-wringers are in a tizzy, as is their wont. Oh, dear, how can we win NASCAR votes with this? And some, such as the one above, can't begin to understand that in secular society freedom to practice religion is implicitly also a guarantee of freedom from religion.

But anyone who cares about our essential freedoms must celebrate this wise, anti-authoritarian decision.

Frankly, it's half a century late. Had we resisted the rise of theocratic Christianity earlier, we wouldn't be in the position of fighting against it for our survival today.

Oh, I know the ruling won't be allowed to stand--seldom has the US taken seriously either the letter or spirit of its constitution--but for a few weeks, anyway, we may rejoice in a slight deviation from our descent into Talibanism.

As for selling our soul to win elections, I have some late breaking news for Sysoprock. The party already tried it, and it's been reduced to a quivering useless mess, so afraid of its shadow that it can scarcely raise a peep against Bushism. Ponder that before counseling further surrender.

[beam me up scottie]

245. BRA-FUCKING-VO !!!

:applause:

Excuse the language, folks.

It's just that I find being told to sit down and shut up and forget about my rights so that the Bubbas don't get upset slightly irritating.

[shrike]

77. Sorry, but this is such a bullshit issue

I don't particularly care one way or the other about the pledge. Most kids probably recite it mindlessly -- I certainly did. But I wish people would stop putting their time and considerable energies into matters such as this. We've got more important things to worry about.

[Book Lover]

80. You know, it's *uncomfortable* in the back of the bus

and I'm sick and tired of sitting there. This issue puts me there. Are you the Democrat who wants to help me to the front, or are you the Democrat who wants me to shut up because talking about this might upset the enemy?

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Book Lover]

107. It is a common phrase

and you know it. No, I am not the equivalent on a black person in segregated America. I've only lost one job because of my lack of belief. Sorry I haven't suffered enough to suit you.

[beam me up scottie]

113. Wow, the bigots are out in force today.

I was wondering what rock they were hiding under.
Haven't seen some of these since the Minutemen threads.

[patcox2]

120. So are the single issue drama queens.

"I am taking my stand, its a matter of principle, I don't care if no democrat ever gets elected again, I demand that the party self-immolate over my obsession with this trivial crap."

Now go ahead and alert, that'll teach me. Free speach that might offend someone, of course, is not a prinicple to take a stand on.

[beam me up scottie]

125. Free "speach"?

:rofl:

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[smb]

227. LOL

Free "speach"?

Yeah, I remember when one of the standard spam-spewing programs tacked a lame sigline defending spam as "free speach".

[beam me up scottie]

246. Yeah, it kinda makes the intended insult nothing but a pathetic wheeze.

I don't usually point out spelling or grammatical errors.

Just when a DU version of the "MORANS" genius is trying to rank on someone.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

133. It's not YOUR party.

It's not a party for the new kkk.

Anyone who thinks that minorities OF ANY KIND should get out of THEIR party simply because they demand their Constitutional rights, is at the wrong website and in the wrong party.

[kweerwolf]

135. Bravo, beam me up scottie ...

... you said it more concisely than I could have ... and MUCH more politely. :)

[beam me up scottie]

141. Well, I had to behave after

my sideways flag comment got deleted.

I usually use that one on freepers and for some reason I forgot I was on DU for a minute there.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

153. Yeah right.

Because none of us evil "athiests" EVER post anything criticizing the Iraq war, the bankruptcy bill, Guantanamo, the deficit...

No. All we care about is the pledge. :sarcasm:

Who's the drama queen?

[shrike]

198. Do you go to bed hungry?

Do you have health insurance? Are you struggling by on two jobs because your good-paying one went overseas?

Are you an Iraqi civilian? An American soldier fighting in an illegal war?

Those are the issues this Democrat cares about. If we ever make headway on them I'll be glad to talk about you and your bus journey.

[beam me up scottie]

206. Oh, DO let us know when we can have our Constitutional rights, will you?

THIS ex-Marine didn't serve her country so that her children could be forced to pledge an oath to a piece of cloth under someone else's god.

[shrike]

219. I make no apologies

Losing a job, losing housing, getting lynched, etc., because of atheism is one thing. Two words in a pledge of allegiance that nobody cares about anyway (I attend a lot of public meetings where the pledge is recited, and believe me, everybody is thinking about dinner and their grocery lists whilst they say the words) is another.

Nope, I make no apologies for my statement. And, I might add, Jon Stewart was not as kind as I last night. His words: "Why, and Who Cares?"

[beam me up scottie]

240. Of course YOU don't care, YOUR rights aren't being infringed upon.

That's the amerikkkan way, after all.

I am, however, thrilled to inform you that liberal progressives are not comfortable with taking away the rights of others and believe that forcing children to affirm religion in public schools is a "big deal".

They more than make up for the pathetic and selfish "I've got mine" losers who still don't get it and never will.

Most progressives have more than enough integrity and courage to fight for the rights of ALL minorities, not just those whose cause happens to be popular with the yuppies that week.

Anyone who thinks they should be allowed to pick and choose whose rights matter and whose don't really ought to check out the perks of going over to the other side.

They love people who endorse compulsory affirmation of the dominant religion, and I hear they have a nice bonus if you sign up right now.

Don't worry, I never expected the sheeple who don't get the whole Constitution thingy to apologize.

Maybe at your next public meeting, you should try reading the First Amendment instead of a forced oath.

Oh, but that would take away from the oh-so-patriotic thoughts of dinner and grocery lists, wouldn't it?

Thanks for reminding me that ordinary garden variety mindless consumers know what's REALLY important.

:patriot:

[shrike]

250. How do the words "under god" infringe on your rights?

For the sake of argument, there are some people who believe every word of the pledge AND feel that America is a nation blessed by God.
They -- unlike me, who doesn't give a damn either way -- WANT the words in there.
Why are your rights more important than theirs?

Oh, and thanks for letting me know I'm not a real progressive. Always good to know such things.

[beam me up scottie]

251. Are you kidding ???

Why is my right to not be forced to affirm their god more important than their "right" to force me to?

Maybe because they don't HAVE the right to force me to acknowledge their god ?

Egad.

I see you really are unfamiliar with the First Amendment.
And I was being sarcastic...

Oh well, don't worry about educating yourself.

By the time this administration and the reichwing, along with the I-don't-care-about-anyone-else sheep are finished, it will be nothing but a quaint chapter in the history of the world's newest theocracy.

[shrike]

252. I should have deleted this post

Because I am no longer commenting on religious issues at DU.

It's a pity, because I do enjoy a decent discussion, and some posters in the A&A forum, such as Beetwasher, Onager, Az, etc., are quite enjoyable to talk to in cyberspace. But I think religion is becoming too divisive an issue on this board (and can NEVER be resolve to anyone's satisfaction), and I would prefer to see more discussion on what I call bread-and-butter issues. I don't expect it to happen -- for example, a thread on the pledge gets 200 responses and Donna Britt's editorial on the "non-chic" poor gets four, including mine -- but I figure that I can remove myself from the problem.

You are welcome to your opinions and may respond to this post if you like, but I will not respond in any manner. Thank you.

[beam me up scottie]

256. Religious freedom is only important to those who are denied it.

And since you've never had to worry about it, you consider it unimportant.

And this revelation comes on a national day of prey-er no less.

How tolerant of you.

[Centered]

236. that depends

are you a Democrat that wants another 8 years of Republicans making decisions for you? Potentially outlawing whatever you personally feel is your biggest concern?

(example only)

Let's make being Gay a mental disorder again and now we can institutionalize them all and try giving them chemically altering drugs to return them to "normal"

Roe vs Wade.... that shits just got to go!!

YeeeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaa Fuck it! Let's shoot all them there damn Mexicans coming across our borders that'll learn em!!


My friend I hear what you are saying that this issue is very important to you... Just as I am sure the people in this thread who believe we shouldn't even say the pledge at all (even without "under god") believe what they are saying... though I personally disagree with that point of view.

Change can not be radical especially when it concerns religion (or lack thereof) And wiping God off the pledge and Money (like no one knows that isn't the next step...NOT) isn't something that can just be done overnight. It's something that would take patience. I understand you feel you have waited long enough for the ball to get rolling. So start the ball rolling... but don't demand that everything should be done now, I know you understand what I mean even if I can't express it very well.

[dmkinsey]

82. Pledge ruled unconstitutional (again)

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Church___State_Issues

<"SAN FRANCISCO - Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." >

[WeRQ4U]

83. Deleted. Moved.

[efhmc]

84. This is a good decision.

[dmkinsey]

88. I agree with the decision but

I realise the RWers will use this as evidence that all Dems are godless anti Americans

[mike_c]

85. good!

Get religion out of public schools. Period.

[beam me up scottie]

86. If you agree with this ruling, please

weigh in here.

I for one, am tired of being blamed for costing us elections.

[Baconfoot]

179. It is the correct ruling. I applaud it not only as an Atheist but as an

American. I would be just as opposed to "one nation by the way not under any god of any kind because there are no gods with liberty and justice for all"

But I think we SHOULD be "blamed" for costing us elections.
Being reasonable has always cost people elections.

[beam me up scottie]

192. Being reasonable and not leaving anyone behind.

You are exactly right.

I said it last time, and I'll say it again, if we have to sacrifice the rights of anyone under our tent, then we don't deserve to win.

[onager]

215. Being reasonable and...

During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!"

Stevenson yelled back: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

[bluestateguy]

87. delete

[earth mom]

89. Good news!

But...What's up with all the deleted posts? Hmmm...

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[u4ic]

94. As a non-American

I've always thought having to recite the pledge in US schools as rather creepy...:shrug:

[patcox2]

103. It is creepy, not for religious reasons, either.

but for some it is an obsession, and the republicans make much of it, causing great harm to the democratic party.

[Zhade]

104. I've thought the same as an American.

I started not standing in high school. In fundie Florida, I got my share of hostility for exercising my First Amendment rights, even as they violated the Constitution daily.

[Fenris]

128. It is a strange ritual regardless of God

I am less concerned about God being mentioned in it and more concerned with the bizarre implication of some of its language (namely, allegiance to an inanimate object).

[slackmaster]

140. But does this ruling have anything to do with a REQUIRED recitation?

From the wording of the OP it does not.

[beam me up scottie]

142. From the SF Chronicle:

California law requires that public elementary schools conduct “appropriate patriotic exercises” at the beginning of the school day.

In a final footnote, Karlton mused that the “ultimate resolution” of the issue “depends on the shifting, subjective sensibilities of any five members of the High Court, leaving those of us who work in the vineyard without guidance. … As preposterous as it might seem, given the lack of boundaries, a case could be made for substituting “under Christ” for “under God,” … thus marginalizing not only atheists and agnostics, but also Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Confucians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious adherents.”

[slackmaster]

147. Thanks, the law sounds unconstitutionally vague to me anyway

Who determines what is "appropriate" or "patriotic"? Or "exercises".

When I was a kid in junior high school we said the PoA every morning after flag raising. Some of us simply omitted "under God" and nobody was ever hassled for it. Nobody even thought about not saying it altogether.

As for "exercises", we always started with jumping jacks and some stretching.

[beam me up scottie]

150. The "required" part scares me.

It's like we're back in the the "Kill A Commie For Christ" days, when your patriotism was measured by how christian you were.

Kids shouldn't be required to pledge an oath to anything.

[Akoto]

99. Does anyone know ...

Which federal judge made this ruling? I would be curious to know about their political affiliation. Given the timing, it's hard to not see something this far-reaching as a 'distort, distract!' maneuver.

[onager]

115. Don't expect courage from ANY Dem. on this one

Has everyone forgotten what happened the last time the 9th Circuit decided this issue? The entire Senate flocked onto the Capitol steps and bleated the Pledge in unison, making sure to bellow the words "under Cthulhu" as loud as they could.

IMO, it was a disgusting display of intimidation by the national religious majority.

Naturally, no one wants to argue the logic of Judge Alfred Goodwin's original decision, only the hot emotional issue of "taking God out of the Pledge." (Leaving aside the uncomfortable fact that an Omnipotent Deity should be quite capable of expressing Its own opinion on the subject...)

Goodwin's logic was unassailable--making children swear an oath "under God" is no different from making them swear "under Allah" or "under Zeus."

And you can just bet the reactions in this thread would be different if THAT ever happened to some "liberal" Xian Democrat's precious little kiddies.

Ah well. We religious non-believers and non-Xians are quite used to the Dems selling us out for political expediency. Like the gays, the uppity women and the other annoying minorities in the party, I guess we'll just shut up and continue to donate our money and time and energy.

Or not.

[beam me up scottie]

116. Well said.

I was wondering how long it would be before they started kicking the uppity minorities off the bus.

[July]

136. I would really like to see a Democrat give a stirring speech on this.

Quoting from Justice Jackson's 1943 decision, which is very eloquent about our freedoms.

[onager]

155. I'd like to see someone quote Jackson from...

...Zorach v. Clauson.

But that quote might hit a little too close to home, especially right now with one "sect" DEFINITELY trying to hog American political power:

The day that this country ceases to be free for irreligion, it will cease to be free for religion -- except for the sect that can win political power.

(Justice Robert H. Jackson, dissenting opinion, Zorach v. Clauson, April 28, 1952)

[kweerwolf]

122. I'm amazed at the level of 'freeper-thought' on display ...

Several posters have called the decision on the pledge a "fringe issue." That's the kind of thinking one would be more likely to find over in freeperland where any issue that doesn't directly affect "them" is automatically labeled a fringe issue.

I would hope the Democratic Party isn't like that. We are a diverse group of people who don't march in lockstep like the Repugnantcans do. Just because you may not be directly affected by an issue does not mean that other Democrats aren't.

Personally, I find the need to invoke a deity in pledging one's allegiance to one's country distasteful. I can understand that some feel otherwise. But for them to stoop to Rovian tactics of calling the issue and those who support it "fringe" is way beyond the pale of what my understanding of "Democratic."

[VegasWolf]

156. Good! Why to pledge to something that can't be proven it even exists!?! nt

[BrightKnight]

158. the original or alternated pledges

"Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892."

"His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. < * 'to' added in October, 1892. >"

Francis Bellamy was also apparently a socialist.

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

or

'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'

[VegasWolf]

161. Yes, and the "indivisible" was just a political hack to start conditioning

school children across the country after the civil war!

[adubadee]

159. Who was responsible for adding "under god" to the pledge?

Thanks for any info.:smoke:

edit- just read the link thanks.

[PassingFair]

209. Knights of Columbus...

if my memory serves.
Eisenhower wasn't thrilled, but he let it slide.

[zara]

162. On behalf of the 10% of Americans who agree with me on this,

that is fine news.
Now about that stick in the Hornet's nest of public opinion....

[VegasWolf]

165. Hey! At first only 10% of us thought that the war in Iraq was wrong!

Especially at first when the public was only shown those "sanitized" pictures of how well the war was going with those precision guided missles and no loss of US lives!

[proud2BlibKansan]

164. Good

I like it when these activist judges rule correctly. :)

[The_Casual_Observer]

167. Idiotic pledge to a flag. It's about time somebody was brave enough

to end that stupid jingoistic nonsense.

[stepnw1f]

168. GOOD....

This is NOT a Christian Nation... It's a Nation. A nation made up of tax paying citizens from many different religious and non-religious backgrounds. This is a fair and practical judgment. Go proselytize in that hell you have for a head.

Get over it!

[bloom]

169. To those who think this is a bad thing:

Could you even imagine if the pledge said, "One nation, under women, with liberty and justice for all". Could you imagine forcing people to say that?

To me - it's a very similar effect to say "under God". God represents the patriarchy and it's insulting and even laughable to think anyone thinks they could seriously argue that to say "One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all" even makes sense. The "Under God" part disqualifies the "liberty and justice for all" part.

Liberals, of all people, should be able to understand this.

[paineinthearse]

170. Legion Appalled by Ruling: 'Pledge of Allegiance Is Unconstitutional'

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=53349

Legion Appalled by Ruling: 'Pledge of Allegiance Is Unconstitutional'

9/14/2005 5:28:00 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk

Contact: Ramona Joyce, 202-263-2982; 202-445-1161 (cell); Joe March, 317-630-1253; 317-748-1926 (cell), both of the American Legion

INDIANAPOLIS, Sept. 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Disgusted by today's ruling by a federal judge in San Francisco that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, the leader of the nation's largest veterans organization pledged a total, unequivocal commitment by America's 2.7 million Legionnaires to "fight with all of our legal and legislative might to protect the right of schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance."

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled, "the pledge's reference to one nation 'under God' violates school children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

"I am disgusted by this ludicrous attack on the traditional values of the citizens of this country," said Thomas L. Bock, national commander of The American Legion. "I'm sure the vast majority of Americans feel exactly the same way. The words 'under God' are a tribute to America's constitutionally protected religious freedom. There is nothing wrong with schoolchildren acknowledging the fact that the founders of our republic openly stated in their writings, before we even had the Pledge, that the United States is indeed 'one nation under God.'"

The American Legion previously filed a "friend of the court" brief with the U.S. Supreme Court when atheist Michael Newdow's lawsuit to remove the words from the Pledge was upheld by the Ninth Circuit in June 2002 but dismissed by the top court on Flag Day 2004. The Court ruled that Newdow could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her. In last year's decision, the court sidestepped the broader question of separation of church and state.

"What is really at stake here is the moral direction of our nation - the right of a free people to recognize that there is a Creator referenced in the Declaration of Independence," Bock said. "The American Legion will never back down. The right of our children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance deserves full protection. We will do everything in our power to see that right is restored permanently."

In 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed legislation inserting "under God" after the words "one nation." The American Legion supported the addition.

"I am confident that the Supreme Court will uphold our Pledge consistent with the desires of we the people," Bock said.

The motto of The American Legion is "For God and country."

Media Contacts: Ramona Joyce, 202/263-2982; Cell, 202-445-1161 or Joe March, [phone]; Cell [phone].

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

[VegasWolf]

172. Ahh, those poor babies!

:nopity:

[BrightKnight]

175. The original pledge did not have "under God."

The original pledge did not have "God" in it and it was written by a Baptist minister.

[Solon]

181. Why the hell should I care about what a Fascist organization...

has to say about this? I'm not even exaggerating here, many members of the Black Robes and Silver Shirts, two openly fascist orgs that terrorized minorities and union leaders in the 20s, 30s, and 40s were also members of this group. Not to mention the involvement of this organization in an attempted fascist coup against FDR in 1932-33.

[paineinthearse]

171. Speaker Hastert Disappointed With Pledge of Allegiance Ruling

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=53348

Speaker Hastert Disappointed With Pledge of Allegiance Ruling

9/14/2005 5:21:00 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk

Contact: Ron Bonjean and Lisa Camooso Miller, 202-225-2800, both of the Office of House Speaker Dennis Hastert

WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) today issued the following statement after a federal judge ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools is unconstitutional:

"Today's ruling by a federal judge who sits in the 9th Circuit is yet another assault on American principles. The Founding Fathers believed that our Creator gave us certain inalienable rights. The Pledge of Allegiance simply reinforces the beliefs that led to the birth of our great nation. It is an oath of our fidelity to our country, and I am disappointed that the court chose to rule against this American treasure."

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

[onager]

176. The strange resemblance between $hrub and some DU'ers...

"The very first act of the new Bush administration was to have a Protestant Evangelist minister officially dedicate the inauguration to Jesus Christ, whom he declared to be 'our savior.' Invoking 'the Father, the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ' and 'the Holy Spirit,' Billy Graham's son, the man selected by President George W. Bush to bless his presidency, excluded the tens of millions of Americans who are Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Unitarians, agnostics, and atheists from his blessing by his particularistic and parochial language.

"The plain message conveyed by the new administration is that George W. Bush's America is a Christian nation and that non-Christians are welcome into the tent so long as they agree to accept their status as a tolerated minority rather than as fully equal citizens.

In effect, Bush is saying: 'This is our home, and in our home we pray to Jesus as our savior. If you want to be a guest in our home, you must accept the way we pray.'"

-- Alan M. Dershowitz, in "Bush Starts Off by Defying the the Constitution," Los Angeles Times, January 24, 2001

[beam me up scottie]

193. Whenever I'm tempted to listen to the morons who want us to shut up

and sit down, all I have to do is re-read that piece.

I saw the writing on the wall as soon as I heard that dedication.

Here we are, over four and a half years later and some people still don't understand why that cut so deep.

You are a vet, O, so am I.
And this is our thanks.
A bunch of snotty punks telling us to get over it or we'll cost the party the election.

You're welcome, assholes.

[Princess Turandot]

177. I find Newdow to be kind of suspicious...

when he filed a suit to stop Bush from adding the words 'so help me God' to the end of his official oath, that seemed a little too bizarre to me to believe this guy is primarily interested in the sanctity of the US Constitution.

Personally, I think he is helping to bring religious crazies out of the woods to vote for Republicans, who did not previously vote at all despite 30 years of abortion drum beating.

[onager]

184. Uh..."so help me God" is NOT part of the official oath

From Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[Princess Turandot]

205. DUH..

yes, I do know that.
Why Newdow felt inclined to petition the Supreme Court to prevent Bush from saying after the Official Oath, "so help me God" mystifies me. I guess he dislikes freedom of speech. Perhaps Bush may have wanted to say, "so help me Mom". Better? Worse? Once that oath was done, I think he would be pretty much free to say whatever he wanted to say.

The idiocy of that lawsuit is what makes me think there is some fishy about Newdow. He suddenly discovers a passion to eradicate the mention of God in public? In time for the last elections?

Next, he may petition for the banning of singing of "America the Beautiful" in public settings, since it does say "God shed his grace on thee."

[onager]

216. Duh yourself. What's wrong with using...

...the presidential oath explicitly spelled out in the Constitution? IMO, the very first time a president arbitrarily decided to stick in that phrase, someone should have filed a lawsuit telling him to keep his religion to himself.

Especially since the Repubs claim to be "strict constructionists" on the Constitution.

I know, I know, saying "so help me Santa" is a "long-established custom."

Sort of like not letting women vote, another long-established American custom until 1920.

[anotherdrew]

180. one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all

just go back to the god free version.

[smb]

228. I'd leave out "indivisible"

It's clunky, and the original purpose (to convey the message neener-neener-us-Yankees-kicked-your-Rebel-asses) is no longer needed.

[anotherdrew]

231. how about: one nation, with liberty, truth and justice for all

I feel like after the last few years we need something in there about truth. Not "the one and only Truth" rather just not blatantly being a lier like so many in the bush admin.

[toddaa]

182. Take out "under God" and it still sucks

Look, I'm both an atheist and a libertarian. I don't want my children indoctrinated to worship the state any more than I want them indoctrinated to worship a god. I send them to school to get what little education it provides, not to stand at attention and say "Seig Heil" in some ritualistic orgy of military discipline. Besides, the state has no business making children swear allegiance to liberty and justice, while it marches thousands of young people off to some godforsaken land to die for oil and throws innocent people at home in jail for as much as inhaling the smoke of certain plants.

Please keep your fucking gods and your police state fascists away from my children. Thank you for your cooperation.

/end of rant

[DuaneBidoux]

185. I hate this kind of shit. I really do wish it would just go away...

If someone were to ask does someone have the right in school not to say the pledge I say "of course..." but these kinds of issues hurt the left over and over.

It feeds right into that mantra of the extreme right over those "overreaching federal judges..."

[beam me up scottie]

195. Gee, I remember you peeps saying the same thing about supporting

equal rights for GLBT people.

Now it's the atheists' turn to take the blame ?

Fine, blame us.

I'm proud of the fact that some of us won't stand aside while they take away the rights of the few to pacify the many.

Anybody that wants us to give up rights should read the Constitution.

It's very inspiring, even if you're not a minority.

[DuaneBidoux]

255. I understand your feelings really and I don't say you're not right!

[beam me up scottie]

257. In a way, I agree with you.

I wish they had never made this an issue of religious freedom by adding those two words.

They knew at the time that it was unconstitutional.

But it passed because the climate in the country was one of paranoia and fear.

Very similar to what it was like in this country in the days following 9/11.

[Tight_rope]

186. Moving on....nothing to see here!

[davhill]

194. Will some atheist please explain

I don't understand. Is a non-existent god going to sent you to some imaginary hell if you have to hear a couple words that might give a little comfort to some of your fellow citizens?

[BootinUp]

196. not one, but

just curious...have you considered the exact opposite? The two words were only added in like the 1950's by my favorite political faction, the RW fundies.

[Az]

197. Explain that to our kids

It is and was an exclusionary phrase. It is designed to set us apart. It was inserted specifically to exlude communists who were preported to be atheists. It is still exclusionary to this day.

To be succinct. When told to make a pledge we wish to be part of the society. We wish to be able to pledge to the same things the rest of our fellow citizens pledge to. The phrase in the pledge excludes us. It sets us aside as 2nd class citizens if even that.

[davhill]

199. I would explain it like this

Some people believe that God is a real person but most people use the term God to indicate that there are principles which transend the whims of individual rulers and that our nation exists "under" these principles

[Az]

200. How long has it been since you were a kid

Lets look at the various outcomes.

Kid stands silent during the Under God bit. Other kids notice. Hilarity ensues.

Kid recites the pledge as written and learns that lying during pledges is alright. Moral erosion occurs. Hilarity ensues.

Kid has religious ideas imposed upon him by state that parents do not wish them to be exposed to. Kid learns to disrespect parents choice of beliefs which leads to disintegrationof family unit. Hilarity ensues.

The simple truth is it is devisive. It really doesn't belong in there. Not in a free society any way. The right thing to do is to be rid of it. Its not the most important thing before us. But it is the right thing to do if our idea of a free society has any meaning.

[BootinUp]

202. Why are you defending yourself?

I think a stronger position is to ridicule those that think the words must be in there. oops, that'll earn me some fans. <G>

[Az]

203. Exchange of ideas and positions

Not defending myself. Simply trying to inform.

[BootinUp]

204. I know, it was a facetious question.

But sometimes I do kinda wonder if the intelligent approach works anymore when issues of faith and politics collide. Take care.

[davhill]

207. I don't wish to belabor the point

It is not necessary to stand silently like the Jehovah's Witness kids. It is only necessary for them to believe that by saying "Under God" they are using symbolic not literal speech. That is not lying. I think most kids can grasp the diference without being dogmatic about it.

[Az]

208. No worries

Belabor the point all you want. Its called dialog. You want to understand why we are upset. We want you to understand the same thing. Ask away. Probe. Inquire. Suggest.

Kids are not a logical open minded bunch of people. They are a group of individuals attempting to come to grips with the world around them. They have partially formed opinions of the things around them.

Its not a question of whether most kids can understand symbolic placeholders (and most 6 year olds can't). Its simply that it is not a burden the US government should be placing on our children.

[PassingFair]

210. If its just "symbolic"

"It is only necessary for them to believe that by saying "Under God" they are using symbolic not literal speech."

Then every other day they should recite "Under Allah" or "Under Zeus", right?

[VegasWolf]

220. Simple. If one does not believe in god, then the phrase under god

has no meaning, in the true sense of Sartre meaningless. In this case, it is no longer a pledge that one takes, it s simply the "Pretty Little Ditty of Allegiance." Suppose one does not like the indivisible portion of the "pledge" and thus omits that word phrase, what does that say about the intention of the speakers pledge? If one is free to pick and choose word phrases, then this "pledge" has no meaning.

[BrightKnight]

223. Children are not free.

They do not teach Sartre in elementry schools.

[VegasWolf]

229. Huh? What does that have to do with my response? nt

[leesa]

201. Funny, That pledge creeps me out.. Why are we trained to say a pledge

of allegiance??

[BrightKnight]

217. post civil war unification and cold war hysteria

The pledge was written after the Civil war in part as a unification tool. That is why we it has "one nation indivisible."

The original version was written by a Baptist minister and it did not have "God" in it. The "God" part was added much later by groups advocating theocracy.

----------

I remember that it was also justified as a cold war tool. Children would not grow up to be commies if the said the pledge in school. It was in our national security interest because the Russian and Chinese were doing this kind of thing.

------

The original version also says "my flag." I think that is more American than "the flag." I am much more comfortable with the original version.

[Bravo411]

235. I agree ....

I also think that they should either romove the pledge from public schools or remove the "under God" part from the pledge. It never made much sense to me.

I'd rather pledge aliegance to the constitution and for what it stands for than to a symbol of ideology that seems to be changing into something really scarry.

[ladylibertee]

213. Federal judge in S. F. declares it unconstitutional to recite the pledge

We'll....I unpledge allegiance to the flag of the United Fake Churches of America.And to the Republicans for which they VOTE, one nation, under Idolatry, with liberty and justice for OLD WHITE RICH MEN :sarcasm: :eyes:

[Judi Lynn]

218. Arizona Republic: One nation (not always), under God (since 1954)

One nation (not always), under God (since 1954)

Sept. 15, 2005 12:00 AM

We get so fixated on which version of the Pledge of Allegiance that we want to strong-arm children into reciting that every time the argument over its wording winds up in court, we blow our chance to teach kids everything they need to know about America.

We're about to do it again. A California judge put the pledge back in the news and back on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, ruling the words "under God" are unconstitutional. The ruling only affects a few school districts in California for now, but that's enough for politicians to condemn judges and pass resolutions (as a unanimous U.S. Senate did a few years back) demonstrating just how little they understand what the flag stands for.

We could start by pointing out to school kids how the "one nation" part of the pledge becomes meaningless every time we talk about the "under God" part, which causes all kinds of divisions. Mostly among people who have no idea where the pledge came from or who wrote it.

It wasn't Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. The Pledge of Allegiance was composed in 1892 by a Baptist minister and socialist named Francis Bellamy. The original pledge written by him read: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
(snip/...)

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0915montini15.html

[Blackwater]

222. Talk about bad timing...

[really annoyed]

234. I agree

Remember the last time this ruling came down - after 9/11?

Technically, this is the right decision.

Emotionally, it's the wrong decision.

[hogwyld]

225. Excellent!

Awesome ruling. This will get the fundies out of our schools. If only we could somehow get rid of them all for good. Our women's wombs would be their own, our GLBT friends could exercise their rights and freedoms to do as they please. We wouldn't have our religious wars of liberation. I say ship every religious person to Israel to await their "Rapture" while we enjoy our lives.

[The Blue Knight]

230. Just more proof those queers in SF hate America!

/sarcasm off

[hogwyld]

232. Just theirs

I only hate the fundies version of my country! Flame on!

[tomg]

247. Thanks to those on this thread

Last night my 12-year-old had a social studies project - typical sort of read an article on current events and summarize it sort of thing. After telling him Derek Jeter didn't count as a current event ( not that he likes Jeter or baseball, he just hates homework), he saw the article on the S.F. ruling and decided he wanted to write on that. First off, my son considers himself an atheist ( maybe yes, maybe no - he's twelve) but his attitude after reading the article was "big deal. I never even say the pledge, and no one cares. Most of us don't. Why make a big deal of it." Remember, please, he is a typical 12-year-old before you rip him a new one. I read DU constantly, and I wanted to see if anything on the issue was up. This thread was. So I told him to check it out before writing his summary. After reading twenty or so so, he realized it was indeed a very big deal. He saw that people cared enough to really argue this out, to look at the implications, and that it is about rights, about timing of court cases, about a lot of things. So thanks to all of you regardless of position.

[beam me up scottie]

258. oops. Sorry about

the profanity.

You should be very proud of your son for realizing that this is about rights and why it's very important to some of us.

A lot of adults are unable to walk a mile in another person's shoes in order to understand how it feels to be excluded.

[tomg]

260. No problem with the profanity.

He's 12, so I think that was part of the hook that kept him reading. Besides, his three much older brothers grew up thinking Ronald Reagan's first name was "That Shithead."

[beam me up scottie]

261. That wasn't his first name?

:evilgrin:

[slackmaster]

248. Nominated for most misleading headline ever

:eyes: