Ravenwood - 09/15/05 07:00 AM
People seem to like throwing the word UnConstitutional around a lot. Now another federal judge has ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is an illegal establishment of religion.
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.The First Amendment clearly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." No where in there does it say anything about reciting the Pledge or not reciting the Pledge. Quite frankly, I'm fed up with these thin skinned atheists pushing their beliefs on other people. If the Pledge is considered religion, then the government preventing people from reciting it would be an unlawful prohibition of free exercise.
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."Maybe I just don't get it. The Pledge is not a religious statement, and I've never gone to church and recited it. Just how does the phrase "under God" establish a religion? Which religion is established? I mean, if the government is establishing, endorsing, or pushing a religion on people, then which one is it? Catholic? Jewish? Protestant?
Just once I'd like to see the judge bounce these people out on their ear and tell them to get over it.
Category: Pleasure Police
Comments (8) top link me
Am I missing something here?
If these fucknozzles lost in the Supreme Court, surely thats the end of the matter.
I think it's long settled that you can't be required to say the pledge at all, god or no god.
http://rhhardin.home.mindspring.com/pledge.ram is an old John & Ken show on the topic that starts slow but gets amusing, owing to angry callers.
Posted by: Ron Hardin at September 15, 2005 7:40 AMPart of the problem is that reciting the pledge may be compulsory, which to me is an issue in and of itself.
No where in there does it say anything about reciting the Pledge or not reciting the Pledge
It also it also doesn't mention yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater :)
Posted by: SayUncle at September 15, 2005 11:06 AMWhat are you supposed to do, let everyone burn to death?
Posted by: Ravenwood at September 15, 2005 11:19 AMRiE, the original suit was thrown out because they SCOTUS decided that the father didn't have standing to file the suit. It was that technicality, not the issue of the pledge, that they bounced him out of court on. The issue is still up in the air.
Posted by: Phelps at September 15, 2005 12:03 PMThe government is supposed serve us, not the other way around.
Police, military, politicians, and functionaries should be required to swear fealty oaths to us.
The Teacher should be reciting an oath of allegience to the students, rather than students to the flag.
Will they now replace the pledge with HAIL CEASAR? or ohh my planet you art my holy mother and please esept this sacrice of a child and bring back the rain oh holer mother earth oh dear gaia and may you bleese the sacrifice what we need to have is idiot judges removed and jerks like mr newdow sent to live in cuba or china
Posted by: screaming eagle at September 15, 2005 4:04 PMMicheal Newdow is self centered jackass he should be bounced donwn the courthouse step on his pointed head why should one impossible idiot like him be allowed to tell us what we do in our schools
Posted by: screaming eagle at September 18, 2005 2:25 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
