Pledge of Allegiance:
 

Just now reported on FOX news that a Federal Appeals Court has ruled the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional.

No details, but I would presume because of the phrase "one nation under God".

When I was a kid "under God" was not part of the pledge.

The details are now coming in and I was correct about "under God". The Federal Appeals Court ruled that this is an endorsement of religion and thus is unconstitutional.

The phrase "under God" was added by an act of Congress in 1954.

Interesting. So why don't they create another Act to take out "under God"? I don't have a problem with it, everyone has their own God or Gods. It doesn't matter to me which one they're thinking of when speaking the Pledge of Allegiance.

Its about time.

Remove all the subconscious christian shit from everything.

Including God We Trust from money.

At least the words God We Trust are over the pyramid with the top cut off, which is the strongest man built shape ever. This symbol is used by Satanists mostly, always has been. We designed our old temples with this shape.

But its also a symbol we use. Anton LaVey.

It will be interesting to hear the outrage of the likes of Robertson and Falwell, as well as the (in my opinion phony) religious right members of congress.

I don't think this ruling will hold up with the current members of the Supreme Court.

As long as they get a working version of the Pledge of Allegiance back in use, I'll be happy.

Not everybody believes in a God.

Some people are Atheist.

People should have the right to not believe in any God if they want to.

In Canada, we have a picture of a bird on our money.
how cool is that!

The main point of the pledge is to pledge allegiance to the country. I've heard that the supreme court said before that the mere mention of god in an otherwise non religious speech does not necessarily make the speech religious.
I hope either the supreme court overturns this or congress will just have to take "under god" out of it.

By DAVID KRAVETS
.c The Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO (June 26) - For the first time ever, a federal appeals court declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional Wednesday because of the words ''under God'' added by Congress in 1954.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the phrase amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which requires a separation of church and state.

''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 appeals said that when President Eisenhower signed the legislation inserting ''under God'' after the words ''one nation,'' he wrote that ''millions of our schoolchildren 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 when the pledge is recited in a classroom, a student who objects is confronted with an ''unacceptable choice between participating and protesting,'' the appeals court said.

''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 school district. A federal judge dismissed his lawsuit, but the 9th Circuit ordered that the case proceed to trial.

''I'm an American citizen. I don't like my rights infringed upon by my government,'' he said in an interview. Newdow called the pledge a ''religious idea that certain people don't agree with.''

The government had argued that the religious content of ''one nation under God'' is minimal.

But the appeals court said that an atheist or a holder of certain non-Judeo-Christian beliefs could see it as an attempt to ''enforce a 'religious orthodoxy' of monotheism.''

AP-NY-06-26-02 1452EDT

Congress has already responded with a resloution. Senator Byrd called the ruling stupid.

it was about time