Pledge not ruled Unconstitutional

This post was written by marc on September 14, 2005
Posted Under: Letters to the Editor

I find it disturbing that the news media is falsely reporting that the Pledge of Allegiance has been ruled unconstitutional. That is not what happened. What the court ruled was that the inclusion of the religious words “under God” in the pledge is unconstitutional. No matter what side of the argument to are on the news media should at least get the story right.

The pledge ends with the words, “Liberty and Justice for All”. The world “All” means everyone including non theist religions, those who are without religion, and those who believe in deities other than the Christian’s God. Issues of religion are very divisive and our founding fathers went out of their way to make sure the government was religiously neutral so that everyone is equal and have the freedom to express their beliefs without the government choosing sides. If the words “Under God” are left in then they should take out “Indivisible” and “Liberty and Justice for All” because liberty has no meaning when the government makes religious choices.

Reader Comments

A federal judge in California has ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional because the pledge’s reference to “under God” violates school children’s right to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.”

OK, it’s California, where a guy with a petition to repeal the suffrage of hamsters could get 10,000 signatures in 30 minutes. It’s ironic that ours is a nation where burning the flag is defended as free speech, but kids saying “under God” should be gagged. But really, is this the most pressing issue before a nation at war, a nation rabbit-punched by a hurricane, and a nation with a big al Qaeda target painted on its back?

On one hand, if God intended to reward us for including him in our daily affirmations before class, He might go a little easier on the hurricanes. I mean, don’t you think that admitting we’re “one nation under God” should invite some tender mercies?

On the other hand, maybe He doesn’t care what we force schoolkids to say out loud, and is more interested in how we conduct ourselves when nobody else is looking.

Who knows? The Lord hasn’t really been keeping up his blog, so we’re not sure what He’s thinking. But I can tell you what I’m thinking: These attention-starved atheists are starting to be as annoying as megawatt televangelists.

#1 
Written By Ron Franscell on September 14th, 2005 @ 7:24 pm

The framers did not go out of their way to ensure government was religiously neutral. They went out of their way to ensure there would be no Church of England or any other state sponsored religion.

If the intent is to remain religiously neutral, then how can any individual claiming a belief other than that of your “church” of reality serve in public office? A Christian may lean to those evil ten commandments in decision making and that certainly violates their religious neutrality.

There is no freedom from religion, quite conversely, “Congress Shall pass no law restricting the free practice thereof” is the law of the land, as long as you are not a Christian.

#2 
Written By Jay Childs on September 15th, 2005 @ 10:20 am

Marc:

For once we agree! Under God (I capitalized God so I don’t potentially piss him off!) should not be in the pledge.

CraZyDAvE

#3 
Written By Dave Atkins on September 16th, 2005 @ 6:00 am

Ron,

Flag burning should be defended as free speech. But if a grade school teacher forced her whole class to burn flags each day before class, that would be wrong.

This is the same as you have the right to pledge alliengience to your god any time you want, but it’s wrong for a teacher or administration to force their class to do it.

#4 
Written By Smalls on October 5th, 2005 @ 8:45 am

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.