Allergic To God
Federal Judge Declares Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools Unconstitutional
CNN, Wednesday, September 14, 2005; Posted: 6:17 p.m. EDT
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday, a decision that could put the divisive issue on track for another round of Supreme Court arguments.
The case was brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected last year by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
Difficult Times Ahead
Book of Timothy, A.D. 67, Apostle Paul
ROME - Don't be naive. There are difficult times ahead. As the end approaches, people are going to be self-absorbed, money-hungry, self-promoting, stuck-up, profane, contemptuous of parents, crude, coarse, dog-eat-dog, unbending, slanderers, impulsively wild, savage, cynical, treacherous, ruthless, bloated windbags, addicted to lust, and allergic to God.
CNN, Wednesday, September 14, 2005; Posted: 6:17 p.m. EDT
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday, a decision that could put the divisive issue on track for another round of Supreme Court arguments.
The case was brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected last year by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
Difficult Times Ahead
Book of Timothy, A.D. 67, Apostle Paul
ROME - Don't be naive. There are difficult times ahead. As the end approaches, people are going to be self-absorbed, money-hungry, self-promoting, stuck-up, profane, contemptuous of parents, crude, coarse, dog-eat-dog, unbending, slanderers, impulsively wild, savage, cynical, treacherous, ruthless, bloated windbags, addicted to lust, and allergic to God.
"At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. [Matthew 24:10-14 | New International Version]
This entry was posted
on Friday, September 16, 2005 at 3:11 PM.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
12:14 AMLemme see if I can get this straight. The pledge of allegiance is penned in 1891 and is instituted in schools in or around 1954 when the line "...One nation under God..." is added. There it remained for the next 51 years without question or concern. And then because one person get's it into his head to go one a crusade to change everything. Now I can understand one's right to not have to believe in what everyone believes (I personally haven't voluntaraly been to church regularly in about 13 years) but there are other things that can be done. When I was in high school we listened to the Lord's Prayer every morning after the national anthem. If any student didn't want to listen to it they had the option of walking out of class until it was over. Problem solved. If one was going to go to all the trouble to change things up, my question is why don't they just remove the line "...One nation under God...". When it was added the granddaughter of the man who wrote the pledge (Francis Bellamy) argued that he would not have like the line being included anyways. At least then you can still have it being a patriotic oath. Doesn't make a whole lotta sense to me. Seems like somebody wanted their name in the news alot more than they wanted to make a positive change in the world.
Of course that's just my opinion....I could be wrong
Kyle
12:51 AM
I like your blog -- good job.
» Post a Comment