| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/3 |
| 2005/9/14-17 [Reference/Religion] UID:39679 Activity:low |
9/14 Here we go again: (Pledge Is Unconstitutional)
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/14/D8CK6SOO2.html
\_ I feel a bit nostalgic for those lazy carefree days when people's
passion might have been aroused by this question. Now, between
passion might have been aroused by this question. Now, after
Iraq and Katrina, doesn't it seem self-indulgent and just a bit
silly to argue over the pledge?
\_ Here is one thing I don't understand. Now that the cold war
is over, shouldn't we just remove the word "under god" from the
Pledge hence remove any controversies? Afterall, we've
pledge without "under god" for hundred+ years.
\_ No because we are nation founded on Christianity ... If
you say that often enough like a robot it becomes true.
\_ Check your timeline. The pledge was written by a Christian
Socialist who had been forced out of his ministry for his
politics. He wrote it in 1892. The "under God" line was added
in 1954.
\_ So 60 years max without God, 50 or so with God.
\_ that is my point. If we can do it without, then,
why don't we just leave it out? If "under god" is so
imporant, why the pledge left it out at first place?
\_ haha, good riddance to a stupid elementary school morning ritual
\_ An atheist had a good point ... If the pledge was "under no God"
instead of "under God" there would be lots of noise from the
religious right.
or "under a nonexistent God" instead of "under God" there would
be lots of noise from the religious right -- I doubt they would
just say "what's the big deal"
\_ that guy is cool. He presented his case by himself at front
of Supreme Court! |
| 4/3 |
|
| www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/14/D8CK6SOO2.html By DAVID KRAVETS Associated Press Writer SAN FRANCISCO Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was declared unconsti tutional Wednesday by a federal judge ruling in the second attempt by an atheist to have the pledge removed from classrooms. The man lost his pr evious battle before the US Supreme Court US District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free fro m a coercive requirement to affirm God." Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th US Circuit Court of A ppeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdo w that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools. The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked stan ding because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter h e sued on behalf of. Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on beha lf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order pre venting the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts, where the plaintiffs' ch ildren attend. The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools. If the court does not change its precedent , the group would go to the Supreme Court. "It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision t o be made," said fund attorney Jared Leland. Newdow, reached at his home, was not immediately prepared to comment. |