Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/14/2005 4:20:59 PM EDT
So some Cali judge said he will place an injunction against the pledge of allegence being said in schools (once the proper paperwork is filed) because of the reference to god.

Does this seem crazy to anyone else but me? All the religious nonsense aside, god is one word, say it, don't say it, I don't give a rat's ass. Don't toss out the whole barrel because one apple is rotten... or is that ... throwing out the baby with the bathwater....? I don't know, insert your own over-used cliche. I think it's a good thing that kids PLEDGE ALLEGENCE TO THEIR COUNTRY.

So, now that we know that grey aliens have taken over some key legistlative and judicial positions in cali. We have to find their weaknesses, like the red dust for the reptile aliens in "V".

Any Ideas?
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 4:36:43 PM EDT
I was under the impression that this was all about children being forced to say the pledge...


I do not think a child should be forced to say the pledge...


Link Posted: 9/14/2005 4:39:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 4:42:39 PM EDT by 1GunnerHogan1]
Not to be the board "police", but maybe you should be asking the CA HTF folks what they think.
Now...IMHO its not to "surprising" that a court in CA would rule like this on an issue, after all the California is home to the 9th Circuit Court is the BIGGEST bunch of socialist freaks in the country. (wait till THEY WEIGH IN ON THIS AS IT GOES THROUGH THE APPEAL PROCESS) Its amazing some of the rulings these completely overboard left wing activist nuts has produced (must be dropping too much LSD there in San Fransissy). Your points are well taken on prayer and God.....pray to god, don't pray to god, sit there in silence, pray for Elvis I don't care.
Just respect the "idea" that we are a society of people aiming for morals and values and the Pledge each morning for kids is part of that heritage.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 4:40:50 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 4:58:44 PM EDT
Pretend for a moment the "pledge" was not a nazi socialists ideal and that it was truely a pro-American pledge, it would still be unAmerican to force anyone to say anything that was against their conscience.

It is a good ruling.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:01:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 5:04:45 PM EDT by R-32]

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
Pretend for a moment the "pledge" was not a nazi socialists ideal and that it was truely a pro-American pledge, it would still be unAmerican to force anyone to say anything that was against their conscience.

It is a good ruling.




It is a good Ruling...
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:02:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
Pretend for a moment the "pledge" was not a nazi socialists ideal and that it was truely a pro-American pledge, it would still be unAmerican to force anyone to say anything that was against their conscience.

It is a good ruling.



As the pledge stands now, in ALL states, no child is forced to say it. Any child may refuse. It's been that way since before I was in school. I remember not saying it for a year in JR. high because I wanted to see what would happen... nothing happenned, I was within my rights.

So let's get away from that arguement, do you have another?
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:04:15 PM EDT
Please correct me if I'm wrong But the words under god, were not a part of the pledge until some time in the 1950"s I think there have been 4 or 5 versions of it throughout the years.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:05:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cboyer:
Please correct me if I'm wrong But the words under god, were not a part of the pledge until some time in the 1950"s I think there have been 4 or 5 versions of it throughout the years.



I think I heard that too
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:07:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 5:10:08 PM EDT by R-32]

Originally Posted By gunchyck:
So let's get away from that arguement, do you have another?



How about you tell us just what the ruleing was over...

I could be wrong here,(wont be the first time, and wont be the last).

was it ruled unconstitutional because it has the word God in it, or because a couple of parents said their child was Forced to say it with the word God in it?...
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:13:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By R-32:

Originally Posted By gunchyck:
So let's get away from that arguement, do you have another?



How about you tell us just what the ruleing was over...

I could be wrong here,(wont be the first tim, and wont be the last).

was it ruled unconstitutional because it has the word God in it, or because a couple of parents said their child was Forced to say it with the word God in it?...



I saw on the news, that it was because the word god was in it. I'm pretty sure it was CBS that I was watching.

This makes sense to me since it wouldn't be groud-breaking news that california had upheld a child's right to refuse to say the pledge- which is a right that has been in effect for so long.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:21:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 5:23:13 PM EDT by STRATIOTES]

Judge Lawrence Karlton in Sacramento, California, in a ruling today found that a school district's policy requiring the pledge with the phrase ``under God'' is unconstitutional.


Sorry to break it to you darling but your anecdotal experience does not apply to LAW !

I'll save the old timers rebuke of youthful over exuberant emmotionalism.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:45:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
Judge Lawrence Karlton in Sacramento, California, in a ruling today found that a school district's policy requiring the pledge with the phrase ``under God'' is unconstitutional.



It should not be Required to be recited no matter what the wording is...

Now if the courts are saying that it will not be recited because of the words "under God" that is wrong also....

Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:54:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:

Judge Lawrence Karlton in Sacramento, California, in a ruling today found that a school district's policy requiring the pledge with the phrase ``under God'' is unconstitutional.


Sorry to break it to you darling but your anecdotal experience does not apply to LAW !

I'll save the old timers rebuke of youthful over exuberant emmotionalism.



It is a fact that you don't have to say the pledge. I was using the anecdote as an example, but, as you know from other conversations we have had in this forum, I am a teacher. I have to abide by certain laws. And when a child refuses to stand for the pledge or say it, I cannot force them to do so. BY LAW.

If you want to call the LAW over-exuberant emmotionalism, go ahaed. Your WRONG, but knock yourself out.

Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:06:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 6:19:21 PM EDT by STRATIOTES]
In the case in question it was school district requirement, quoted above.

NJ is not in the 9th district, I know facts are not your thing.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:22:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
In the case in question it was school district requirement, quoted above.

If NJ is not in the 9th district, I know facts are not your thing it's ok.



http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/ForEducators/Viewpoints/WhytheSupremeCourtShouldProtectthePledgeofAll­egiance.shtml

I love how you like to change words so that they fit into your arguement. They are talking about the 9th CIRCUIT which is a level of the court system (a little different than a district). They also do speak of a particular district in the story and they talk about the VOLUNTARY recitation of the pledge... which they are trying to throw out altogether.

Are you ok now? Or do you need anymore hand-holding? I'm here for you, man.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:30:28 PM EDT
Oh dear

The U.S. Supreme Court last year vacated a decision that said a California school district violated the Constitution's separation of church and state clause by requiring teachers to lead the pledge. The justices didn't decide whether the pledge was constitutional, instead ruling that Newdow lacked the right to bring the challenge. Newdow overcame the hurdle by including students who live in the district in today's case.

Karlton said he followed a previous ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco. Newdow's claims ``are resolved because the 9th Circuit has held that the school policy mandating the pledge is unconstitutional,'' Karlton wrote.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aMTk2b07FhZs&refer=us
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 10:19:08 PM EDT
1) The last time I checked WA falls under the authority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circui thus this topic is applicable to the WA HTF.

2) Prior suits had the plantiff practically specifying and agreeing that no one is being forced to to participate in reciting the Pledge.


MICHAEL A. NEWDOW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
US CONGRESS; UNITED STATES OFAMERICA; GEORGE W. BUSH*,
No. 00-16423

Michael Newdow appeals a judgment dismissing his chal-
lenge to the constitutionality of the words "under God" in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Newdow argues that the
addition of these words by a 1954 federal statute to the previ-
ous version of the Pledge of Allegiance (which made no refer-
ence to God) and the daily recitation in the classroom of the
Pledge of Allegiance, with the added words included, by his
daughter's public school teacher are violations of the Estab-
lishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Newdow is an atheist whose daughter attends public ele-
mentary school in the Elk Grove Unified School District
("EGUSD") in California. In accordance with state law and a
school district rule, EGUSD teachers begin each school day
by leading their students in a recitation of the Pledge of Alle-
giance ("the Pledge")
. The California Education Code
requires that public schools begin each school day with "ap-
propriate patriotic exercises"
and that "[t]he giving of the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America shall satisfy" this requirement. Cal. Educ. Code
§ 52720 (1989) (hereinafter "California statute").1 To imple-
ment the California statute, the school district that Newdow's
daughter attends has promulgated a policy that states, in perti-
nent part: "Each elementary school class [shall] recite the
pledge of allegiance to the flag once each day.
" 2
_________________________________________________________________
1 The relevant portion of California Education Code § 52720 reads:
In every public elementary school each day during the school
year at the beginning of the first regularly scheduled class or
activity period at which the majority of the pupils of the school
normally begin the schoolday, there shall be conducted appropri-
ate patriotic exercises. The giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the require-
ments of this section.
2 The SCUSD, the school district that Newdow claims his daughter may
in the future attend, has promulgated a similar rule: "Each school shall
conduct patriotic exercises daily . . . . The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag
will fulfill this requirement." However, as discussed infra, Newdow lacks
standing to challenge the SCUSD's rule requiring recitation of the Pledge.
The classmates of Newdow's daughter in the EGUSD are
led by their teacher in reciting the Pledge codified in federal
law. On June 22, 1942, Congress first codified the Pledge as
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of Amer-
ica and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indi-
visible, with liberty and justice for all." Pub. L. No. 623, Ch.
435, § 7, 56 Stat. 380 (1942) (codified at 36 U.S.C. § 172).
On June 14, 1954, Congress amended Section 172 to add the
words "under God" after the word "Nation. " Pub. L. No. 396,
Ch. 297, 68 Stat. 249 (1954) ("1954 Act"). The Pledge is cur-
rently codified as "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 jus-
tice for all." 4 U.S.C. § 4 (1998) (Title 36 was revised and
recodified by Pub. L. No. 105-225, § 2(a), 112 Stat. 1494
(1998). Section 172 was abolished, and the Pledge is now
found in Title 4.)
Newdow does not allege that his daughter's teacher or
school district requires his daughter to participate in reciting
the Pledge.
3 Rather, he claims that his daughter is injured
when she is compelled to "watch and listen as her state-
employed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates
in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that our's [sic]
is `one nation under God.' "




How about those facts?


Link Posted: 9/14/2005 10:20:05 PM EDT
California is being run by aliens... can we do anything?

Hell no, because Arnold is a fookin' alien!
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 10:43:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gunchyck:
So some Cali judge said he will place an injunction against the pledge of allegence being said in schools (once the proper paperwork is filed) because of the reference to god.




So, in this Judge's Court, what does the person on the stand swear on and to whom...?
A LARGE BOOTED SWIFT KICK IN THE NUTLESS BALLSACK of the Cali Judge in question.
Hitting him upside his empty, soul-less head is an option.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 11:27:00 PM EDT
Most amusing, these threads are getting more and more common every day, the gov is confisating fire-arms, the gov is taking peoples property, the gov is taking away freedom of expression and so on and so forth, the gov only has delegated powers, they have no authority as all authority comes from the We the People, so it comes down to who has more force, the government or the people ?

Think about it.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 11:46:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 11:53:41 PM EDT by R-32]

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:

who has more force, the government or the people ?





Shhhh...


Red Dawn is on!,( I love the part where the kid is shooting at the russian Helo...)


Anyone see my Remote?..I need to turn up the Volume I cant hear my show with Strat trying to tell us about the slow death we are enduring..



WOLVERINES!.. BOILING FROGS!
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 6:57:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
1) The last time I checked WA falls under the authority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circui thus this topic is applicable to the WA HTF.


Nice "try"
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 7:42:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 1GunnerHogan1:
Not to be the board "police", but maybe you should be asking the CA HTF folks what they think.
Now...IMHO its not to "surprising" that a court in CA would rule like this on an issue, after all the California is home to the 9th Circuit Court is the BIGGEST bunch of socialist freaks in the country. (wait till THEY WEIGH IN ON THIS AS IT GOES THROUGH THE APPEAL PROCESS) Its amazing some of the rulings these completely overboard left wing activist nuts has produced (must be dropping too much LSD there in San Fransissy). Your points are well taken on prayer and God.....pray to god, don't pray to god, sit there in silence, pray for Elvis I don't care.
Just respect the "idea" that we are a society of people aiming for morals and values and the Pledge each morning for kids is part of that heritage.




I could be wrong...but aren't socialist very patriotic?...at least the political spectrum of it (now you might have ment to say communist, but still I don't think they would be anti allegance).

The whole thing is about some Athiest who has been complaining about it for years. It isn't forced, any child can refuse, its like a dress code really, they can't every make you do it. I personally am not offended by the word "god" being there, but mostly I don't care. Why shouldn't kids pledge alegence to their country...maybe then some of them would start to try and make it better, fix the problems instead of just whining about them. Maybe this will lead to another revision of the thing. In the end, I think it is just another waste of the courts time and another abuse of the first amendment.


Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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.

Top Top