I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united board called Oprano....

[sarettah]

http://www.nbc11.com/news/4973157/detail.html
Federal Judge: Pledge of Allegiance 'Unconstitutional'

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. -- 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.

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."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.

.................................................. .....

[XxXotic]

what the fuck is happening to this country? makes me wanna cry, it truly does. :(

[TheEnforcer]

Regardless of whether you agree or not with the ruling the judge is correct in the respect that as a lower court judge he IS bound by the higher courts ruling.

[JR]

what the fuck is happening to this country? makes me wanna cry, it truly does. :(


sometimes a good cry helps to get a grip on yourself.

[MorganGrayson]

Geeze...I hate this one. First of all, the Constitution says what it says, and it isn't at all ambivalent on the subject. "No establisment of religion" is pretty clear.

However, you can't turn around in this country without running into "religion." It's on our money, our courthouses, pick something...there it is. You swear on a Bible when you testify in Court. (That actually has to do more with psychology than religion, as it's been verified that even people who don't believe have trouble with swearing on a Bible then lying.)

Now, this whole mess has nothing to do with my own personal religion, to which I am very devout, so I guess I'm supposed to be up in arms over the whole thing. However...I'm not. (I chose my religion because of the "mellow and groovy" features, and we have no panty wadding over what you personally chose to call The Great Whatever. If you choose *not* to believe in The Great Whatever, that's cool, too. No skin off our hooked, warted noses either way.)

The whole "under God" thing was *added.* (I forget when. Decades ago, though.) Nobody's got a writer on staff who can fix this, so that kids can still be helped along with their young patriotism...before they get old enough to have it shafted by watching the news? I realize "one nation under God, however you define him/her/it/them or chose not to believe in one at all" is a tad lumpy...but taking out two words certainly shouldn't strain the feeblest of writers. "One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." (That's from grade school memory, so forgive me if I forgot anything.)

Hey...let's get a lawsuit going because my sensiblities as a writer have been offended. :okthumb:

[justb]

the Jehovah's Witnesses will be happy

[XxXotic]

Regardless of whether you agree or not with the ruling the judge is correct in the respect that as a lower court judge he IS bound by the higher courts ruling.That's not so much the point. They're basing this shit on seperation of church and state, which has nothing to do with keeping religion and politics seperate. Nor was it implied to keep kids from learning about religious things in school. It sole purpose was to say that America will not choose 1 religion as a "national religion" over another religion, nothing more.

Allah, Buddha, Christ, Zeus, etc etc are all referred to as "God", believeing in "God" does not automatically make you a Christian. I think if kids want to say it they should be able to. So suddenly because 1 or 2 people might not participate EVERYONE should be excluded? That's not how America works, at least not the framers intentions on how it should work. What happens if some kid doesn't like chocolate milk? Does that mean Nobody can have chocolate milk?

Congress/Courts need to start worrying about the shit that's important. Not pacifying one small group of people by stripping everyone else's rights away, not legislating on steroids in baseball or worrying about Terri Schiavo. When did we get our priorities so out of whack? oh n/m... in 2000 when idiots elected a bible thumping redneck.

[PornoDoggy]

Let's simplify things ... let's restore the Pledge of Allegience to what it was before the Eishenower administration.

[MorganGrayson]

Let's simplify things ... let's restore the Pledge of Allegience to what it was before the Eishenower administration.

That's basically what it says now, only without "under God," correct?

[ThrobX]

That's basically what it says now, only without "under God," correct?

Bingo. :okthumb:

[MorganGrayson]

Bingo. :okthumb:

So...simple change, restore it to the original...all's good.

Except of course for the millions of screaming Christians led by the president, who have absolutely no doubt that "under God" refers to *their god only.*

*sigh*

[Dravyk]

So when is someone going to sue over "In God We Trust"?

[PornoDoggy]

I'm pretty sure they have sued over "In God We Trust," and lost.

I do agree with XxXotic - this is kind of a bullshit fight. I'm much more worried about welfare for religious groups (a fucking "Faith-Based Initiatives Office" working out of the White House, for example) than I am about the pledge.

Still, it's his right to fight it.

[CuriousToyBoy]

what the fuck is happening to this country? makes me wanna cry, it truly does. :(

It started a LONG time ago.

:-(

[JR]

I'm pretty sure they have sued over "In God We Trust," and lost.

I do agree with XxXotic - this is kind of a bullshit fight. I'm much more worried about welfare for religious groups (a fucking "Faith-Based Initiatives Office" working out of the White House, for example) than I am about the pledge.

Still, it's his right to fight it.
i think its important to start drawing the line ANYWHERE it can be drawn and still satisfy the constitution.