THC - Cannabis - Ministry :: Community Forum Index
The Pledge of Allegiance: One Nation, under Dogma

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    THC - Cannabis - Ministry :: Community Forum Index -> Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ferre
Cannabis Sacrament Minister.
Cannabis Sacrament Minister.


Joined: 14 Apr 2003
Posts: 7295
Location: Amsterdam

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:08 am    Post subject: The Pledge of Allegiance: One Nation, under Dogma Reply with quote

I found this article this morning, and wanted to share it with you guys...

Quote:
The Pledge of Allegiance: One Nation, under Dogma

By Jim Amrhein
Whiskey & Gunpowder
Baltimore, MD
October 5, 2005

Jim Amrhein discusses the controversy over the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance -- and destroys the arguments in favor of it being there.



“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.” (emphasis added by author)

-- U.S. Supreme Court, Everson v. Board of Education, 1947

Like it or not, the above excerpt from the decision in the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education Supreme Court case pretty much sums up the whole “under God” debate about the Pledge of Allegiance that’s once again front and center on the public stage. If nothing else, the presence of that two-word phrase unequivocally equates to professing a belief in God. There’s simply no other way to interpret it, is there?

Citing Everson v. Board of Education, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled last month that the recitation in public schools of the Pledge of Allegiance as currently written is unconstitutional, because it contains an endorsement of religion in violation of the constitutional principle of “separation of church and state.” And loathe as I am to side with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court -- the most activist (and most overturned, by the way) federal court in the country -- I think that the decision handed down last month in that San Francisco court banning the Pledge of Allegiance as unconstitutional because of its Judeo-Christian component is the right one.

Mostly, anyway (I’ll explain what I mean by that in a minute).

But first, in the event you’re not familiar with the case, here are some of the particulars: In 2002, the 9th Circuit ruled on a California atheist’s lawsuit against the state, the federal government, and the local school board on the grounds that the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public school classrooms -- required by law in the Golden State and others -- violated his daughter’s First Amendment rights by forcing her to profess a belief in God. The case before the court last month is nearly the identical case. Same plaintiff, even. However, this time, the man has sued on behalf of a number of other non-Christian children and their parents (turns out he didn’t have proper custody of his daughter at the time of his original suit, which created some procedural roadblocks to the trial’s progression). So basically, same case, same court, same ruling.

If upheld, the ruling would strike down the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools in the nine states within the umbrella of the 9th Circuit: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

The Pledge of Allegiance: Indivisible -- Except by Beliefs

When the original 2002 ruling declaring the Pledge unconstitutional because of its religious component was handed down, the flap on the Hill was enormous -- from both sides of the aisle. In fact, the Senate followed the ruling by throwing together a whirlwind resolution in support of the existing Pledge (it passed on a 99-0 vote) and invoked the Senate counsel to intervene in the case. From what I’ve read, the pressure was so intense the judge who opined in the original case actually suspended his own ruling pending scrutiny from the entire 9th Circuit…

CONTINUE...



_________________
█ Please read the Board Rules and Posting, and you
Radio Free Amsterdam
People who know truth, speak truth.
Those who don't, quote scriptures.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    THC - Cannabis - Ministry :: Community Forum Index -> Discussions All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Public forum Public Forum Members only Members only forum Members Group Members Group

THC-Light skin designed for Amsterdam Cannabis Ministry by JuggoPop
phpBB Group | THC Ministry Members | Cannabis Religion | Sacrament | Forum html archives | Site Map | RSS Feed |
ScriptWiz.com phpbb HTML Archiver - Created by ScriptWiz.com and released by Skinz.org