Just in from AP "SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday, a decision that could put the divisive issue on track for another round of Supreme Court arguments."
News Link
Michael Newdow, the same man who brought the case to the supreme court last year, is back with the same argument. How could this be? Because the court threw the case out on a technicality. I just rolled my eyes when I heard that reasoning. He is back with 3 families that have full custody of their children. Well, nothing like a hotly divisive issue to give Roberts a baptism by fire! They should have known the case would be back.
I actually believe the pledge should revert back to the original, without the words "under God". If you believe in God, great, praise Him, her, it, however you believe God exists. If you don't believe in God, what good is it to say you think the country is under God? Does it make them less of a citizen? Does it make them less patriotic to believe only in what they can see/feel/prove? Why drive a wedge into patriotism?
Similarly, why should someone swear in under oath with a Bible if they don't subscribe to that religion? It makes no sense at all. They should be swearing by their own integrity, under penalty of perjury. Bearing false witness is already a sin according to the ten commandments, so isn't this procedure sort of redundant for Christian's sake?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Why isn't this a State's Rights issue? Does the United States Federal Government mandate the activities of each school? Isn't that the responsibility of each state's government?
Why is this fight being taken place at the federal level? Did Congress actually pass a law stating that pledge of allegiance must contain the words "Under God"?
Because the last time I looked at the Constitution, it stated that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I know that the original roots of the "Under God" addition to the Pledge was in response to the Atheism® aspect of Communism™--how ironic that our country is slowly evolving to become the same entity that we fought for so long during the cold war (thanks in a large part to the Socialist (err, I guess we say "Liberal" in 'Merica) Men in Black Robes who legislate from the bench).
In this case I don't think it is a state's rights issue. We would need a state pledge in addition to the country's pledge. The pledge of allegiance was created in the 1890's, added to the US code by congress in the 1940's, and then revised in the 1950's.
Wikipedia Link
Its quite clear that many of our founding fathers were Christian. They knew that time and time again church states failed or became divided. To protect religious freedom, any one religion could not be endorsed or favored by the state. A wall was necessary, which is why the only reference to religion in the constitution is the first ammendment, as you pointed out.
Legislation from the judicial bench has been a hot topic lately. We also have to keep in mind that it is a necessary check/balance of the system. They will inherently restore freedoms or uphold legislative restrictions on freedom with every decision they deliberate on.
Thank you for the input Jason.
I don't disagree with you aaron that the easiest solution to this would be to return the pledge to what it was originally written to be.
I went alot deeper at watchblog which you saw, and probably surprised you coming from me - lol
It would not end the discussion on the other issues related to separation of church and state and the establishment of religion but it would at least remove our children from one discussion that we as adults have not figured out yet.
Jim, are you saying you agree or disagree with the pledge as is? The 'wacked out activist judicial system' is seen by many as a check on the 'wacked out right wing majority' at the moment. Take away the rhetoric and sensationalism, what remains? The issue will find its way back to the supreme court by apeals no matter what the lower court decisions. I feel the they should have decideded it while it was on the table.
I'm curious how you personally feel about the issue, politics asside. Thanks for your thoughts.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess Jim doesn't agree with the ruling.
:-)
I've been giving this alot of thought and discussion since both you and I posted about this.
It strikes me as ironic that in 1943 it was stated the pledge was voluntary to not be unconstitutional and this was before "under God" was added.
Also what Jason wrote about this being a state's right issue made me think. Some of the early state constitutions not only stated you had to be a believer to be able to hold office but some went even further and demanded a certain religion must be followed.
It suggests to me the true intent of the Federal Government was not to have this whole separation of Church and State but to make sure there was no Federal Religion promoted.
Will this case make it to the Supreme Court? Or will the Virgina case make it first? Time will tell.
Thanks for the Judicial Watch link, although they are sparse on info for judicial activism. Watchdogs are great, looks like they've exposed some truly bad judges.
The electoral majority pendulum swings back and forth, always has, always will. Gerrymandering, special interests, and other factors greatly affect the candidates for our constantly changing legislature. The courts have long term continuity to weather shorter term political winds. At a high level, the courts are passive in that the citizens must bring the case before the court. If the court upholds the law, it remains passive. If it overturns, it is active. I'd appreciate more ideas on what makes a court or particular judge an activist.
Fear of God or eternal damnation is a useful concept for many, but a patronizing fantasy for others. A congressionally santioned national pledge of allegiance should conform to the principles the nation was founded upon, in this case separation of church and state.
On a separate but related note: This morning, I was listening to Bob Frantz drill an ACLU lawyer who was on his program "discussing" the anti-partial-birth-abortion bill for Michigan. I don't know much about that bill, but you know that anything anti-abortion gets the full attention of the left.
What struck me as odd was that this lawyer kept saying "The courts haven't defined what a fetus is", and "The courts haven't defined [this or that]". My question is this:
Why is it up to the court to define such terms? Isn't that the job of a legislation? Is this just acknowlegment of the "phantom" judicial legislation from the bench?
Keep in mind the job of the courts is literally to interpret the law, and make sure the constitution is not breached by them.
By the way, I am against almost all abortion. The practice is undeniably taking all rights from the baby. A baby has a spirit before it emerges. I heard part of Bob's segment and it reminds me of a part in Atlas Shrugged, where no one will take responsibilities of their own opinion on a matter because it bears too much risk of being fired or falling out of favor.
I think most protestants have the same unofficial personal hierarchy of allegiance: God, family, country, mostly in that order. Thats an interesting point! Thanks for the comment.
Post a Comment