I appear to be living in the wrong country...

[Robert Braun]

Read on.... a copyrighted report from Fox News...

=================

Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional

Wednesday, June 26, 2002

SAN FRANCISCO — The Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and cannot be recited in public schools, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

In its ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 1954 act of Congress that inserted the phrase "under God" after the phrase "one nation" in the pledge.

The Pledge of Allegiance

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic
for which it stands,
one Nation. under God, Indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for All.


"A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel.

The court, in the nation's first ruling of its kind, said that when President Eisenhower signed the 1954 legislation, he wrote that "millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said students cannot hold religious invocations at graduations and cannot be compelled to recite the pledge. But the appeals panel said that classroom pledges, regardless of whether a student participates, are unconstitutional and an "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting."

"Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge," the court said.

The case was brought by Michael A. Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who objected because his second-grade daughter was required to recite the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified School District.

The ruling says the government had argued that the religious content of the phrase "one nation under God" is minimal.

But the appellate court says it may reasonably appear to an atheist or a believer in certain non-Judeo-Christian religions or philosophies to be an attempt to impose monotheism on students.

================

[Bill Zuelsdorff]

I saw this on the news last night. What an outrage. When will it stop? Whether you're religious or not, this country was founded under Christian values. They are all over the early documents of our country. I know there is separation of Church and State, but look at where religion is and has been a part of our government since it's beginning. And why does our country allow the voice of one fruitcake to dictate policy and laws? What happen to the rule of the majority? Ever since everyone has been abusing our laws and Constitution for their personal rights, our country has been going downhill. Everytime some one feels their personal rights are violated, they run to the courts and have the fools sitting on the bench buffaloed into thinking that they have been wronged.

I was happy to see the response Congress and president gave to this and hope somebody in California comes to their senses. I heard to this guy and his family have been threated since the ruling. Boy isn't that just too bad. Perhaps he should go to a place where his personal rights will be watched more carefully, like China to start with.

[Mike Thorson]

While I think it is fundamental for people to truly understand the Consitution by realizing there is a higher power than Government and that humans are born with certain unalieanble rights my personal feeling is that The Pledge, which I believe was written for the Columbian Exposition in 1900 (??) and then enhanced in 1954 with the "under God" part, isn't all that important. The majority of kids who recite it don't even understand what they are saying and that's because they aren't taught what it means. If the basic education of the words isn't there, the Pledge is meaningless. I think more time in the school needs to be devoted to the basics of history, the arts and citizenship instead of sports, recycling etc. anyway.

I presonally don't have a problem with the recitation at all. All the court ruling does is galvanize the supporters of it even more. The people filing the suit have ended up hurting their own cause. All of the millions and millions of dollars spent on this over one word in the pledge - that could have sent lots of kids to college.