The 9th Court of Appeals in California just found the Pledge of Allegiance “Unconstitutional”. Are we helpless to stop this?
Critics of the decision were flabbergasted and warned that it calls into question the use of “In God We Trust” on the nation’s currency, the public singing of patriotic songs like “God Bless America,” even the use of the phrase “So help me God” when judges are sworn into office.
The case was brought by a California man who objected to his daughter being compelled to listen to her second-grade classmates recite the pledge.
In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the phrase “one nation under God” amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the separation of church and state.
Notice this essay posted at the Monterey County ACLU website, the ‘winning essay’ of a contest they had.
The pledge of allegiance was first devised in 1892 by a socialist named Francis Bellany. The original pledge reads: I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” The words “my flag” were changed to “the flag of the United States of America” in the early Twentieth century so immigrants would only swear to the American flag. During the 1950s the Red Scare reached its height. During this time McCarthyism was in full swing — the most despised aspect of communism was atheism. To establish that the United States was a Christian nation fighting an atheist nation, Congress, in violation to the Constitution, passed several laws putting God into American life. These laws ranged from putting “In God We Trust” on all currency, changing the motto of the United States from “E Pluribus Unum” to “In God We Trust”, and altering the pledge of allegiance so that instead of reading “…one nation indivisible…” it now reads “…one nation under God indivisible…”
The pledge of allegiance in it current wording is unconstitutional.
Emphasis mine. So it is not surprising that this is the position that the ACLU holds on the pledge of allegiance; it is also interesting that it is pointed out and accepted that the pledge was written by a socialist and that they want to go back to the secular intent of its writer.
Michael Newdow, a physician, a lawyer and an atheist, is moving to remove all acknowledgements of God and our Christian heritage from our culture. Interestingly, he claims to be doing so on behalf of his daughter; but the mother of the child is a Christian woman who disagrees with his position, and claims their daughter has no problem with reciting the pledge of allegiance, they go to Church, the girl attends Sunday School, etc.. So this is just a ploy for Newdow to continue ramming this secular crap down our throats for the sake of the daughter who he wants to be just like him.
What I’d like to know is–is Michael Newdow a member of the ACLU? Although the media keeps harping on his being an “atheist”, is he a communist, also?
The legal basis of this decision is based on the false premise that the phrase “under God” is an “establishment of religion”. That’s just ridiculous. What removing these national treasures does is ram Michael Newdow’s believes down our throats and discounts what the rest of us believe, in addition to wiping our rich heritage clean of a belief system that doesn’t hurt anyone.
Saying “under God” doesn’t force anyone to believe anything. This is legal mumbo jumbo for a communist agenda to make acknowledging the belief system of over 85% of Americans illegal to profess, to practice, to preach, in public.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU blogburst. Over 100 blogs are on board. If you would like to join go to our portal and register. We will add you to our mailing list and send you the simple instructions to be a part of our movement.
Help us get an ad in the Washington Times.
|
|
Excellent job as always!
Sorry Cao. Once again you miss the point. Freedom of Religion also means freedom from religion. The court was right in their decision. Thank goodness the ACLU is around to protect all of our rights.
And what about the rights of the majority? Thank GOD for private schools!
Pingback: basil's blog
Scott-I made the point, you’re the one who missed it.
I’m not ‘for communism’ which supports the views that Newdow is trying to ram through our courts under the guise of his daughter’s sensitivity to the word “God”. His daughter’s mother is a Christian and they go to church regularly. The stuff that Newdow has said on behalf of his daughter is his own beliefs–what he’s trying to do is–ram his beliefs down everyone else’s throat. Can you honestly tell me that saying “one nation under God” in the pledge of Allegiance impugns non-believers in any way?
This reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance-especially such a religion-neutral and denomination-neutral expression is a part of our country’s heritage and enjoy the full imprimatur of our founding fathers.
We’re all aware of the many and long-standing references to God in our founding documents and governmental institutions (Supreme Court, Congress, etc.) and so we know the framers were not offended by them. I came across another one that even preceded the Declaration of Independence.
In a Declaration on the Necessity for Taking Up Arms against the British, Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson made multiple references to God as well as penning patriotic themes. “Our cause is just. Our union is perfect … We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the divine favor toward us, that His providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy until we were grown up to our present strength … we most solemnly, before God and the world … exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator has bestowed upon us. … ”
So you think it’s fair that Newdow is trying to make the world according to Newdow and isn’t taking the rest of us into consideration–including hundreds of years of history?
Could all those who really believe that any students are being harmed by saying “one nation under God” please raise their hands? Can anyone contend that with a straight face?
This is leftist authoritarianism telling the majority of people they don’t have freedom of Religion, that our children don’t either– and this kind of action is simply destroying our national treasures. I am against it all the way.
I don’t care if the left has found some way to twist things in order to claim that it’s “unconstitutional”. This is extremely dangerous rhetoric IMO. It might be correct as far as legal mumbo jumbo, but it’s just WRONG.
The establishment clause also says “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. What the courts are doing is in direct opposition to that part of the statement they so conveniently leave out….what the founders were after was–that there can be no state- sponsored, supported, or mandated religion. Neither can there be any kind of government-imposed control on any type of religious belief (or non-belief). Nor can there be any discrimination against any individual or group on the basis of religion.
I believe by taking Newdow’s side in this argument, that they’re discriminating against over 85% of the population who are Christians in this nation–the moral majority is losing its right to speak about the Bible, to preach in public, etc., etc.. It’s fascist…and it’s precisely what happened to Christians under Hitler, which is why this movement needs to be opposed and stopped.
Beam Me Up Scotty
You’re the idiot who don’t get it and missed by a mile!
How can you be supportive of the –
Asshole
Communist
Lover’s
Union
– unless you’re a Leftie-Loving Communist.
Ciao Cao. Got your stuff ready.
The ACLU is (as usual) gunning for anything that will win them headlines and shock value (I suspect their donations have dropped with all the bad publicity), so this case will spark donations from the “aethiests” that are scared of religious people and all their “morals” and “values”. All that stuff is so… midwest.
Scott,
Are you delusional? The First Amendment of the U.S. constitution clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” That is the “Establishment Clause”
The second part states: “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Congress is not making a law creating a “Church of the U.S”, But these lawsuits are certainly violating the civilian right to the “free exercise” of their religious beliefs.
Watch out because the pendulem has a way of coming back to cut you in half!
The ACLU is NOT looking out for our constitutional rights:!:
I found a video that will piss the ACLU off, including all of the Leftie-Loving-Communists who stop by and adorn us with their dribblings — it’s a short one; but don’t watch it if a 4-letter word offends you
Pingback: Publius Rendezvous
Scott…
People like you can not believe in God, but would have me believe that our founding fathers lived in mortal fear of school children hearing the words “one nation under God”- “impermissibly coercing a religious act.â€
Of course you do…the ‘collective’ hasn’t told you to think otherwise.
Scott, you’re the one that has missed the point as has been pointed out by the other commenters. Freedom of and freedom from are two totally separate entities and the First Amendment clearly lays out the intent as The Uncooperative Blogger pointed out.