Judge rules that the U.S. Pledge of Alligiance is Unconsitutional

Nah, TexasSky -- that's San Francisco. It's not really part of our country! They make up their own rules as they go!

 

Don't be ashamed of the country, just be ashamed of the liberal court system that allows such travesty to occur.

 

This will spread like a fungus. Today there, tomorrow everywhere!! This world is going to, well, ya know where.

 

This is not the first time we Californians have gone through this. The first time, the ruling was stayed, and the decision was overturned by a higher court. That's exactly what will happen hear. This decision will be overturned on appeal, because the higher court has already heard similar arguements. Just watch. This judge used a lower court ruling, not hte higher court ruling, as the basis for precedent here.

That's what the appeals process is for.

As a fellow Californian, I couldn't agree more with that statement

Nope, it will be overturned on appeal. Just watch.

What's really scary is that folks like the Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and unfortunately, even D James Kennedy, will now get on the bandwagon and use this opportunity to raise funds for their own purposes. And they're make millions. Gullibility in the pews is rampant.

[ September 14, 2005, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

Another political red herring for both the right and the left. Lots of heat, very little light.

 

How would all of you feel if they took the words "under God" out of the pledge? Remember: originally, they were not there.


Regards,
BiR

 

You mean it's not?

 

Thank you President Eisenhower for placing
God in it why are they so determined to take
it out is their religion greater than ours
shouldn't we be fighting Satan hiding behind the Aclu moveon.communist and yes even some of our so called liberal churches the war is on and it's from within let's fight and not switch

 

BiR,

Not to be cryptic, but you can probably guess my position.

 

we need to have laws pass that allow big judgements against organizations like the Aclu when cases like this have to be overturned in order to prohibit the aclu from entering into these frivilous suits in the first place vicious attacks against our religious liberty hopefully our attorneys will react fast and hard and John Roberts will be in the chiefs seat when that happens

 

Don't worry - you can still put in the "under God" part when you say the pledge; you just can't compel other people's children to.


This will probably be overturned on appeal anyway.

 

Don't worry - you can still put in the "under God" part when you say the pledge; you just can't compel other people's children to.


This will probably be overturned on appeal anyway. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually,

The whole case is a farce since you couldn't compell them to even say the pledge at all, let alone "Under God" before this decision.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Yep, It's a farce case. No Big Deal but will provide plenty of political fodder. It's the same athiest trying to get attention for himself but in the end it is really no big deal since you cannot force a child to say the Pledge in the first place.

I have mixed feelings about the Pledge especially the part "indivisible" which many of us States righters thinks is an untrue statement
and that it seems to be a political statement against Secession.

That the Pledge was written by a Socialist and that it seems to promote Big Central government and diminish State's rights. Bellamy, the author of the pledge wrote,

"The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. "

Harry Browne has a interesting article on the Pledge at http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PledgeOfAllegiance.htm

 

Honestly, I couldn't care less.

 

I agree!

 

If one nation is TRULY under God should not that influence their politics?

Does one nation under God allow for the slaughter of the unborn?
Does one nation under God allow for homosexual civil unions (or marriage)?
Does one nation under God produce billions of dollars worth of pornography?
Etc, etc.

Perhaps God is using a secular judge to remove a label which really is now meaningless.

Every nation in the world is equally entilted to use "under God" since He has put every government in power.

Other than that the US has no more claim to being "under God" than any other nation.

 

Do you look over as many message boards as your time allows for issues you "couldn't care less" about in order to post that? If not, why are you posting it here?