General Music Chat

Wow!!!

I was just arguing in another thread yesterday, about this phrase....

"That we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights"

It comes from our Declaration of Independence. And I was arguing about the profound value of that phrase, being that BECAUSE OUR FREEDOM COMES FROM "GOD" no MAN has any right to remove that freedom from us! It was the founding father's message to the King of England, and any other would-be dictators to follow, that our rights CANNOT be alienated from us by men or courts or laws, because that gift came DIRECTLY FROM GOD!

The belief that something comes from a HIGHER POWER, above the decisions of man, is what helps PRESERVE those rights!

Well, California (amazingly enough) recently ruled SIMILARLY and apparently for the SAME REASONS as I posited here recently!

-------

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/12/BAS71CEC9F.DTL


Appeals Court says 'Under God' not a prayer
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, March 12, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO -- The federal court that touched off a furor in 2002 by declaring the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to be an unconstitutional endorsement of religion took another look at the issue Thursday and said the phrase invokes patriotism, not religious faith.

The daily schoolroom ritual is not a prayer, but instead "a recognition of our founders' political philosophy that a power greater than the government gives the people their inalienable rights," said the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in a 2-1 ruling.

"Thus, the pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect."

The dissenting judge, Stephen Reinhardt, said statements by members of Congress who added "under God" to the pledge in 1954 show conclusively that it was intended to "indoctrinate our nation's children with a state-held religious belief."

In a separate ruling, the same panel upheld the use of the national motto, "In God We Trust," on coins and currency. The language is patriotic and ceremonial, not religious, the court said. Reinhardt reluctantly joined the 3-0 decision, saying he was bound by the court's newly established precedent in the pledge case.

Atheist sued

Both suits were filed by Michael Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who has brought numerous challenges to government-sponsored religious invocations. He said he would appeal the rulings to the full appellate court and the U.S. Supreme Court, but was not optimistic.

The rulings sent two messages, Newdow said: "To be a real American, you believe in God, and the judiciary unfortunately sometimes can't be trusted to uphold our constitutional rights when you're a disenfranchised minority."

Former Justice Department lawyer Gregory Katsas, who represented the Bush administration in the pledge case when the court heard it in 2007, heard a different message: that "one nation, under God" suggests a government that "is limited and bound to respect individual rights."

Swift reaction

Newdow first challenged the Pledge of Allegiance in 2000 on behalf of his daughter, a student in a Sacramento-area elementary school. The appeals court ruled in June 2002 that the addition of "under God" was religiously motivated and sent "a message to nonbelievers that they are outsiders," in violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.

Congress reacted furiously, passing a resolution with virtually no dissenting votes that denounced the decision. The court put its ruling on hold until the case reached the Supreme Court, which sidestepped the constitutional issue and ruled that Newdow could not represent his daughter's interests because her mother had legal custody.

Newdow then refiled the suit on behalf of the parent of a kindergartner in the Sacramento suburb of Rio Linda. He won the first round before a federal judge in 2005, but a new appeals court panel issued a 193-page ruling Thursday upholding the pledge.

Pledge isn't prayer

In the majority opinion, Judge Carlos Bea acknowledged that "the words 'under God' have religious significance," but said they do not "convert the pledge into a prayer."

The 1954 law that added those words at the height of the Cold War was meant to convey the idea of a limited government, "in stark contrast to the unlimited power exercised by communist forms of government," said Bea, joined by Judge Dorothy Nelson. "Congress' ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism."

Reinhardt, a member of the 2002 panel that found the language unconstitutional, said Thursday's majority ignored overwhelming evidence of religious motivation by the 1954 Congress.

He cited statements by numerous lawmakers denouncing atheistic communism and declaring a belief in God to be part of the American way of life. Reinhardt also pointed to President Dwight Eisenhower's signing statement that millions of schoolchildren would now proclaim "the dedication of our nation and its people to the Almighty."

During the same period, Reinhardt said, Congress adopted "In God We Trust" as the national motto, ordered it inscribed on paper money and established an annual National Prayer Breakfast.

By inserting religious language into the pledge, Reinhardt said, "we abandoned our historic principle that secular matters were for the state and matters of faith were for the church."

I agree with Steve & Mike. The combination of the addition of the phrase & then requiring our children to recite it, daily, virtually removes a patent's "god-given right," if you will, to raise his children in ways that promote his own beliefs. The phrase has no value other than to force ppl to admit to things that they may not, in fact, believe.

Remember, whether you are a believer or not, that it is also a "god-given right" for every person to choose for oneself in matters of religion.

This, imho, is subversive, in that it undermines parental control of the issue of religion. It is an invasive policy that puts undue pressure on parents, separates children who hold to other beliefs, & gives the impression of preferential treatment for one group of religions over the rest, in that "god" is both recognized & revered by the state.

This has no place in our system, since ours is supposedly a secular form of gov't. I consider this to be another example of our country treading on dangerous ground in ways that will certainly prove to be divisive.

This is, to put it in the simplest terms possible, an attempt by the state, which violates the Bill Of Rights, to indoctrinate our youth in a learning environment.

Are we pledging our loyalty to our country, or are we pledging both to "god & country?" Takr it back out. It wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. Our gov't was clearly never intended to promote any religious belief, & should never be allowed to show a preference for any religion, or group of religions, over any other belief, or lack thereof.

I cannot accept this, as a good American citizen.

I cannot accept this, as a good American citizen.

Well, I don't think it is as justifiable as the words found in the Declaration of Independence, but the court ruled it rests on the same principle. It is not something mandatory. No one has to say it if they don't want. In fact, there is a religious group (A Christian based one, can't remember which) whose children won't recite it, because it against their faith, to pledge to an OBJECT. "I pledge allegiance to the FLAG"

So, what are you gonna do? Can't please everyone. I think it is more important that the court recognized the guiding principles of our forefathers, than that they go overboard, as some schools and courts have... misunderstanding the Separation of Church and State, to believe that it means that children as INDIVIDUALS cannot even pray in public schools.

Your also talking about something in place for more than HALF A CENTURY now. Perhaps it sends a worse message removing it, at this point?

I suppose you would remove the wording from the Declaration of Independence as well? Beginning each session of Congress with prayer, as they do now? Putting a stop to the National Prayer Breakfast, held annually with the President?

Extremism works both ways Phil.

Just remember... it's not mandatory, and there is likely always going to be SOMETHING that some group claims, violates their civil or legal or religious rights. Where does it stop?

Balance is the key.

"Respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of any RELIGION"

This does not ESTABLISH or even PROMOTE any particular religion. It merely follows the precedent of our forefathers, in ackowledging that ultimately there is something ABOVE men and governments, and that our very rights are DERIVED from that higher power.

'Twas mandatory when I went to school, but as you say, that was a long time ago.

I agree with Steve & Mike. The combination of the addition of the phrase & then requiring our children to recite it, daily, virtually removes a patent's "god-given right," if you will, to raise his children in ways that promote his own beliefs. The phrase has no value other than to force ppl to admit to things that they may not, in fact, believe.

Remember, whether you are a believer or not, that it is also a "god-given right" for every person to choose for oneself in matters of religion.

This, imho, is subversive, in that it undermines parental control of the issue of religion. It is an invasive policy that puts undue pressure on parents, separates children who hold to other beliefs, & gives the impression of preferential treatment for one group of religions over the rest, in that "god" is both recognized & revered by the state.

This has no place in our system, since ours is supposedly a secular form of gov't. I consider this to be another example of our country treading on dangerous ground in ways that will certainly prove to be divisive.

This is, to put it in the simplest terms possible, an attempt by the state, which violates the Bill Of Rights, to indoctrinate our youth in a learning environment.

Are we pledging our loyalty to our country, or are we pledging both to "god & country?" Takr it back out. It wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. Our gov't was clearly never intended to promote any religious belief, & should never be allowed to show a preference for any religion, or group of religions, over any other belief, or lack thereof.

I cannot accept this, as a good American citizen.

They dont do the pledge of allegiance anymore.
Havent since the 80's.
Not the schools that I went to anyway.

So... dont worry about it.
Pledge of allegience is kind of a ridiculous ritual anyway when you think about it.
What was supposed to be accomplished by it? Brainwashing?

What was supposed to be accomplished by it? Brainwashing?

Yes.


But it has been a time honored tradition since 1892. The Supreme Court has upheld that it cannot be MANDATORY, but state laws generally REQUIRE that it be "offered". Congress opens with it's recitation, as do local government meetings.

I suppose children may die, if they were to recite something patriotic on a daily basis in school, that reminds them that this country is founded on justice and equality for all.

Cant they just teach the kids the values of what the country was founded on, what they still should be, and leave it at that?

You know... actually educate someone instead of having them recite something every morning?

History demonstrates that the only rights a man has are those he is willing to kill and die for.

You know... actually educate someone instead of having them recite something every morning?

Schools educating kids?

It's crazy... but it just might work!