RE: Fed. Judge Declares "Pledge of Allegiance" Unconstitutional

[Daniel Kronemann <kron4155@uidaho.edu>]

To all

Well I guess I must say "Finally someone struck it down" if only the
"under God" part.  Personally I find the entire pledge problematic.  I
wouldn't want my kid taught to "pledge an allegiance" to any country over
another.  Another example of the our hypermasculine culture and how it is
trying to create this "us versus them" mentality.

However, the issue is with the "under God" statement of faith in the
pledge, so I'll stick to the topic.  It doesn't matter if this addition
(in 1952) was intended as a reference to a "generic God" and meant to be
inclusive to all religions (which I don't believe).  The state should not
endorse any religion, nor all of them.  If someone wants to invoke God or
whatever, in a public place, or has discussions on religion and theology,
fine.  But the state has no business endorsing any of it in statements.
That is what religious freedom means.  Not just for Christians but for
everyone, including atheists.  I do not think this country was founded for
solely Christians, but for everyone.  And even if our founding fathers
intended to found this country for Christianity solely, that isn't the
case anymore.

In Eisenhower's statement of reason for adding the "under God" part, he
refers to "spiritual weapons."  I find that term very disconcerning as a
pacifist.

To Mike Rush: Try the First Amendment.  The first amendment is the one
that has the separation of church and state.  "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances."

John Harrell wrote:

"In their misguided, twisted ruling, two judges on this three-judge panel
believe including those two simple words is akin to a government
establishment of an official religion."

Because it is a government sponsorship of a religion.

"The court said "under God" is a violation of the alleged separation of
church and state -- despite the fact that no language in the Constitution
or subsequent legislative history makes any mention of any such
separation. These judges are trying to turn the freedom OF religion into a
freedom FROM religion."

Again I refer you to the First Amendment, for the separation of Church and
State.  The judges recognized that the Freedom of Religion clause includes
from from religion.  It is their right to believe in any religion or no
religion at all.

"As Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) notes, the First Amendment of the Constitution
"does not bar religious expression in public settings or anywhere else. In
fact, it expressly PROHIBITS federal interference in the free expression
of religion. Far from mandating strict secularism in schools, it instead
bars the federal government from prohibiting the Pledge of Allegiance,
school prayer, or any other religious expression. The politicians and
judges pushing the removal of religion from public life are violating the
First amendment, not upholding it."

So you don't think making a law, requiring the recitation of the pledge
with the words "under God" isn't interfering with the free expression of
religion?  What if they don't want to say the pledge?  Are they guilty of
a crime?  What if they don't believe in the Christian God or any generic
God?  Are you not forcing them to say something they don't want to or
don't believe?  How is that not interference of free expression of
religion?  No one is baring people from praying or expressing religious
opinions or removing religion from public life all together, but only
prohibiting it being forced onto those that do not want to say the pledge,
or don't want to say they believe in the Christian God or any God.

Love

Daniel