Jump to content

Pledge of Allegiance ruled "unconstitutional"

Recommended Posts

Here we go again.


New decision posted today in California.


"Judge rules Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional

'Under God' reference not appropriate for public schools, he says"


See story link:



Once again, a tempest in a teapot to correct someone's misguided sense of "correcting a horrific wrong." It's just so wrong that we would spend taxpayer dollars on such an issue based upon one person's skewed views.



Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So you don't think the case should be appealed, so as to not waste money?


Oh wait, you probably don't see anything wrong with public schools promoting the religious view that god exists to schoolkids every day - so you'd also have no objection if the pledge were revised (yet again) to read "one nation, under no gods, indivisible..."?


By the way, what does this have to do with scout issues?


addendum: Here is the PDF of the opinion: message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could probably get the 9th Circuit Court to declare saying the the sky is blue is unconstitutional because it discriminates against the color blind!


childrens right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.


Never knew this was a right or a problem!


Hey while we are at it let's get "In God We Trust" removed from all our money & get every reference ever printed about God removed from any material that might be possibly read by someone that might be offended by it!


The offensive thing here is the 9th Circuit Court. The up side is they have been over turned more than a hotel mattress!


Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not way out there on the leftist, and/or atheist tree limb - just trying to think this through. Please forgive the random streams of thought. . .


Public school kids are a captive audience. Including "under God" in their day, as a matter of practice, is a forced religious acknowledgement. I don't see how we can say that's absolutely appropriate.


"under god" is not as faith-nuetral as a "moment of silent reflection" - it carries a very specific religious message.


I wouldn't think God needs the US govt. doing marketing. And if God did want that - wouldn't his expectations be higher?


"Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's."


We Americans get very crazy when we see foreign nationals using their God as a weapon of hatred against us.


Most of us rely on family and our religious organizations for faith leadership and communion. Do we really want the public schools carrying that ball?


So, what's the purpose of "under God", "in God we trust", etc.? The "under God" part is only about 50 years old - a reaction to the "godless communists". Are we still fighting the Cold War - against ourselves?



Link to post
Share on other sites

It is amazing that my last post was deemed as inappropriate by a staffer, since the nose was thumbed at believers again. Apparently Merlyn's posts as an anti-theist and an anti-scouter are deemed more merit worthy than theists or scouters. His position consistently denigrates me just as he believes that the BSA denigrates anti-theists.


Moderator, are you choosing sides?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta disagree Ed... if a kid does not say the pledge, they are being different, and that is not a major goal of kids in school. There is a lot of subtle and unsubtle pressure to conform.


I'm a devout Christian, but I really wish the government would make up its mind. Religous expresion OK or not? If not, remove it from the money and Pledge. They added it to both at one time or another- it was not mandated by God or even a popular vote of the people. It can be removed.


For crying out loud, the entire Pledge was the result of a Baptist minister, and it was only slowly adopted into society. It was not commisioned by the people, or enacted as the direct action of our government. Written in 1892, it was not even accepted as 'official' until 1942 and the 'under God' bit added in 1954.


In looking this stuff up, I noticed that the original author WANTED to include 'equality', but dared not at the time since it was a hot topic.


Perhaps it is time to tweak the Pledge again, drop 'under God' and insert 'equality'.


"I pledge allegance to the flag

of the United States of America*,

and to the republic for which it stands,

one nation, indivisible,

with liberty, justice, and equality for all."


(*- Heck, even this line is a fairly late addition!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This judge would be happy to ban the BSA and jail its Scoutmasters. Make no mistake the ACLU will change the face of America. When I was a young scout in the 60's some said that the USSR would be more like us and we would become a new Russia. Today I live in that Nation and if we just do nothing the America that every past generation fought to create will just fade away. The young scouts of today will fight with the help of GOD to save our Republic or it will be no more!



Link to post
Share on other sites

So because of the words "under God" there are those who want the Pledge removed. I'll bet the clown who the ACLU talked into filing this suit spends the US currency that has "In God We Trust" on it. Anyone see the hypocrisy here? Little Johnny's parents are offended by the words "Under God" but give him fiver with the words "In God We Trust" on it to pay for lunch! Unbelievable! We are becoming the USSR!


Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Link to post
Share on other sites

1.) This happened in San Francisco. It figures; nothing new there.


2.) Merlyn_LeRoy's posting - ditto


3.)Want to drive an ACLUer nuts? Ask them if they have any cash on his/her person. They will. Ask them to read all of the wording on the note/coin. Watch what they do with the money. Hoisted by their own petard they will be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "under God" phrase doesn't seem to have the same historical context as the notations on currency. Isn't "historical context" how those things are usually decided? The "under God" phrase was added in 1954, during the Cold War, as a political statement to separate ourselves from those "godless Commies".


Ed, perhaps you know more about this suit than I do, but the article noted that the person filing the suit was an atheist who had been working on this issue for 5 years. Not sure what the ACLU has to do with this, but it doesn't sound like the ACLU needed to convince this person to file suit. And the suit was not about removing the Pledge, only the cited phrase.


k9, not sure exactly what you're getting at. The judge, in his decision, cited previous precedent that he was bound to uphold, saying that he was bound to confine his decision to the narrow constructs of this particular case. To do otherwise would probably have him labeled as an "activist judge", something that is regularly railed against here. I'm not real sure how you get from a judge simply following legal precedent to labeling him as a judge that wants to ban the BSA and jail the Scoutmasters. How do you suppose he'd do that? Regardless, this will all be decided in the higher Courts. It's by no means over.


k9, I will agree with you on one thing, tho. The present administration is certainly doing some things that would remind many of the USSR of old. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

America is great because we have believed throughout our history that God, our Creator has given us our rights. (We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . .) This is crucial to American freedom. Because our rights come from God, and not the government, no government can take them away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it isn't








There is no comma after nation. Unfortunately most people have learned the Pledge incorrectly. "One nation under God" should be read as a single phrase, not as two distinct ideas.


I heard an interesting comment made by the former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich. He pointed out that our country was founded on the idea that our rights are given to us, not by a government or mankind, but by God.


From the Delaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


The sentence previous to this specifies that they are refering to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God".


The fact that these rights come from God mean that they cannot be taken away by government or mankind. This is a key difference between the U.S. and other countries.


If you take away God, you take away the very basic foundation on which our rights/government/society are based. If you take away God, your rights now come from mankind its government, and thus can be taken away by mankind and its government, as proven in China, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany.


It is a very powerful idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...