It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Federal Judge Rules "Under God" Unconstitutional in Pledge

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kartlon has ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional. The judge indicated he was bound by the legal precedent set by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The suit was brought on the behalf of three families by atheist Michael Newdow who has challenged the Pledge before.
 



www.kxtv.com
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.

Karlton's ruled in a lawsuit brought by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow (shown above) on behalf of three families who are custodial parents of children who attend Northern California public schools and the students themselves.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The "under god" part was added to the Pledge during the Cold War If I recall and was not part of the original. What we have is a fundamental debate between the separation of church and state. An atheist myself I actually have no problem with the pledge as is but I would draw the line at say prayer in public schools.




posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I don't see how they are going to kill it. The defense is that the pledge doesn't say "One nation under the Jewish God of the Old testament that wrote the Bible and sent his son Jesus to die for our sins". The intent might have been that, but the words are generic. The word "God" itself is a generic word whose meaning differs depending on where you are from.

Again, this pledge was instituted by Congress, and here we have a judge trying to pass law from his bench. This is probably the only thing that Congress would actually agree on 100% so any ruling by any judge can be overturned, if need be by adding it to the Constitution.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
It's not the original...no reason to keep it there.

I shouldn't have to pledge allegiance to ANY God, to pledge allegiance to my country. If you want to pray, fine, no problem, but you don't need to do it in the pledge.

It's about time this was recognized....(now if we can just get it off our money)....

Of course, you can expect Paladin Bush to crusade for the Christian cause in this one. Hell, it might even take the heat off for that Hurricane Karina (well, as Laura put it) disaster......!!!




The word "God" itself is a generic word whose meaning differs depending on where you are from.


Ahh...but if an atheist....then what? See, it doesn't apply, so the argument is a moot point from that angle.

[edit on 14-9-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   
If you are an atheist just insert whatever it is that's most important to you in place of "God". See, it still works for you.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
For the most part, no teacher I know of would actually force someone to recite that particular line within the pledge if the case was presented, however, where was this could make a bigger difference as the south and some out of the way areas tend to frown on non believers.

I dont see why people argue so much about this, but I dont see why they defend it so vigoriously either. Let the child decide.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   
WHy was it added anyways? WHy not bring back the original pledge? WHat if it was a religon that had a goddess, no god, doesn't apply to them?

To dbates, so I would say "One Nation, Under Humanity"? But then you get the christians mad because you are defaming god or some such thing. They can't lose this, if this goes away they won't be able to get flat earth/center earth/creation in school anymore.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
A better question than the 'under god' business, is why do we compell children to pledge blind allegiance to the flag every morning in the first place? I find that more repugnant than the 'under god' part.

For those who are fighting for the 'under god' part, why do you not consider the pledge to be a form of idolatry in the first place?



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Full Metal
To dbates, so I would say "One Nation, Under Humanity"? But then you get the christians mad because you are defaming god or some such thing. They can't lose this, if this goes away they won't be able to get flat earth/center earth/creation in school anymore.


This is both ridiculous and shameful. When has a Christian ever started a Supreme Court case because somebody defamed God? And what 20th-century American school has taught flat-earth or geocentric theory?

If you think yourself somehow enlightened or authoritative, then I strongly recommend you re-evaluate these contentions... because it would appear that you're just another angry little boy that thinks atheism and bashing Christianity are one and the same.




And back on topic... for whom is this a victory? I haven't said the Pledge in ten or fifteen years anyway; it's not like it comes up a lot outside of school.

And I didn't have a problem saying it back then, either... I've been an agnostic since I was twelve, and I still managed to get by saying "under God" every day without suffering any major psychological damage.

[edit on 14-9-2005 by The Parallelogram]



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
So what, the pledge is not a national anthem I grew up without the pledge of the legion back home in PR and we ARE a US territory.

But we had to recite the National Anthem.

So what is the big deal.


If you want to recite it, add all the gods you want to that is your choice, if you don't want to recite it then don't.

I can not believe that we can force children and adults to recite the pledge but most children can not even said the national anthem.

Pity.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Playing Devil's Advocate here (mainly because I'm bored and trying to stir up some discussion) why have a Pledge at all? I'd settle for the playing of the National Anthem over the loudspeaker and a Moment of Reflection. During the Moment of Reflection let those who are inclined to pray silently. I have never been too fond of the Pledge, some try make a case for indoctrination or brainwashing over it.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
I'm against God being on our money..but not because I am atheist but because as a Christian, I see money as the root of most of the evil in the world. To me and I think to all of us who hold respect for a higher God, is it not tantamount to blasphemy to place that word on something as filthy as currency? In other words, I don't think God is contaminating our money but vice versa. Probably not much of a help to the heathen's point of view but at least we agree if but for different reasons.

As for the pledge, I think we can compromise there. Lets recite it as originally drafted into law. Of course to some that is probably being insensitive to those who came to the US not to melt into and join our culture but to corrupt and change it to suit themselves.


I don't need to say "Under God" in the pledge to please my faith. I can pray or meditate any time because as much as it has been attempted, they cannot legislate morality or private thought. As for the issue of judges making law, I can hardly wait until the other side begins screaming about the very thing they are depending upon now. Its all about what suits you at the time. Yes, I don't think it would hurt to revert to the original pledge..as well as some other original laws but thats not a job for a judge. Its a job for the house and senate. By judges making law on the bench, we the people are being denied our rights. It should be the representatives that we elect making law. That way they are held accountable and given mandates on what to do.

Judges suck! Either do YOUR job or step down.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
I shouldn't have to pledge allegiance to ANY God, to pledge allegiance to my country. If you want to pray, fine, no problem, but you don't need to do it in the pledge.

........

Ahh...but if an atheist....then what? See, it doesn't apply, so the argument is a moot point from that angle.

[edit on 14-9-2005 by Gazrok]


I agree with you totally on the first part.

On the second part, even me being agnostic, "God" isn't that generic... or, I should say, generic enough. And, it's still the fact that I pledge my allegiance to my nation under ANY god at all that gets me. I remember when I was in about 3rd grade getting in trouble several times for not saying the Pledge of Allegiance. I wasn't being defiant, just not saying it because I'm lazy, lol... now imagine if I WAS being defiant because of the use of "God"... I would've had ALOT of problems...



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I have to say it every morning in 1st period. We don't have to say it though, just stand and listen to the guy/girl say it over the speaker. The guy goes so slow and well, like Bsh does. "I pledge the.........(3 minute pause for applause) Alleigence.....(a 1 minute pause)



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
How many school even recite the pledge anymore. Just time I did that was in grade school, and that was a while ago. It would be interesting to find out how many schools still do this and where they are located.

I don't really have a problem with the "under God" but I tend to agree that school really isn't the place for it. If you want your child to learn about & believe in God, there are places for that, home and church.

And I am a believer myself.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
anyone have any comments on this?:

this country was founded for all religions to coexist, except athiesm?

the declaration of independence attributes all our rights to our creator. if an athiest believes there to be no creator, then maybe they should have no rights ???


anywho, if this country was founded for the religious (all religions included), than God should remain in the pledge. if this country was founded without any God at all, than God should be removed from the pledge and we would further have to argue that the birth of this country was erroneous as well.

just a thought.


[edit] - my personal belief is that it was inccorect to have altered it in the first place and it should be reverted back to the original.
daved

[edit on 9/14/2005 by Dasher]



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
These idiots will be trounced by the Supreme Court once again, they just don't understand where they live and where we come from and they will suffer the humiliation once again of being wrong, stupid and scum. It's rule by Majority in this country and just because they live in Mexifornia doesn't give them special rights.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dasher
anyone have any comments on this?:

this country was founded for all religions to coexist, except athiesm?



Here's a comment: the only religion that doesn't accept the existence of a deific entity is atheism. Therefore, if we strip God from our society, all religions would be passed over in favor of atheism. That doesn't sound like coexistence to me.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   
If the word "God" is being used to mean any, generic god that you believe in, what if the word 'allah' was used in it's place? 'Allah' just means 'god', like 'god' means 'God'.

"One nation, under Allah"

See? It could be anyone's 'allah', even the Christian Allah.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by The ParallelogramTherefore, if we strip God from our society, all religions would be passed over in favor of atheism. That doesn't sound like coexistence to me.


Hmmm no one has asked for this. Simply to not promote "god" in a publicly funded institution. It does imply an endorsement of "god" in this context. i agree it does not specify a god, but why not gods? What if I believe in more than one supreme being?



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
If the word "God" is being used to mean any, generic god that you believe in, what if the word 'allah' was used in it's place? 'Allah' just means 'god', like 'god' means 'God'.

"One nation, under Allah"

See? It could be anyone's 'allah', even the Christian Allah.


I read about this in another thread. Allah is Arabic for God.




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join