Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional
- Thread starter Gordon Gekko
- Start date
Where does it specifically say the church and state should be separate? I'm not aware of that phrase anywhere in the Constitution.
What the first amendment is guaranteeing is that the state will not place one religion above all others or to the exclusion of others. It's saying that government should not be involved in pushing a particular religion, it does NOT say that religion (especilly in a non-denominational form) can't or shouldn't be a part of government. All their actions and those taken since (as noted in my previous post) indicate that they did NOT intend for government to be anti-religious.
However, as you say, the Constitution is organic and I would suggest that if a majority of the people want to remove "In God We Trust" from currency and obliterate anything that even remotely sounds even quasi-religious (even though a God is a fundamental belief of billions of people - petty dogma and politics aside), then perhaps that decision should be made either by a national referendum or at least by the elected representatives - not a tiny, often unrepresentative judiciary who in many cases are legislating from the bench through their rulings.
If a majority of the people wanted to do it, I'd say fine. I'm just not keen on judges making their own laws - on this or any other matter.
(ArchAngel, this is not necessarily directed at you.)
minority, majority...who cares. majority rule sucks. what we need is OBJECTIVE LOGIC.
i'm not asking for the government to be "anti-religious." i just don't want it to be PRO-religion.
as i previously said, if people want to be religious in america, go ahead. if you don't want to be religious, go ahead. the government and public schools should have NO BIAS. WHAT THE F IS THE PROBLEM?!?!? why do you religious people need the government and schools shoving your shit down people's throats who don't want it?!!??!
a government run according to religion is not one i want to be controlled by--that's for damn sure.
From the US Constitution
Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
The founders gave the Supreme court the power to interpret laws, and settle controversies between a citizen and his state. The citizen in this case has a beef with the state over the Pledge.
If you don't like the the role of the Judiciary in our society, promote an amendment to the constitution to change its role.
Change the constitution or accept the constitution's powers given to the Judiciary.
Or, get out of town. What do they say, "America, Love it or Leave it"
To mess? Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
Read it and weep ArchAngel.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
Read it and weep ArchAngel.
BOTTOM LINE = our constitution has been HIJACKED. the problem is, can religious people in high office (supreme court) see past their own religious beliefs (if they have them) and make the RIGHT decision for ALL americans? i hope so.
dgabriel - two things:
1. My point about the judiciary was NOT that there was a problem with them INTERPRETING the laws passed by the legislature. It was in their LEGISLATING from the bench. Many judges have done this on numerous occassions (the district court out in California being one of the most egretious offenders), often having to be overturned by a higher court.
As the passage you noted provides for - they were intended to interpret the letter and intent of the law, not impose their own de facto laws through their rulings. Hopefully you don't actually believe that judges never attempt to legislate from the bench.
2. An excellent find on the Jefferson speech. However, as noted previously - the various institutionalized uses of religious terms and/or items in documents and ceromonies and (most significantly) that Congress has ALWAYS had a chaplain open its sessions with a prayer - one could reasonably question what meaning Jefferson might have had in his "separation" statement.
Clearly he expected government to be inhibited from establishing a state religion or impairing people from the free exercise of their religion of choice. But so far I haven't seen any reference to the intended total exclusion of religion.
In fact, since "religion" has NEVER been completely "separated" from government since the inception of the first Continental Congress in 1774, apparently they did NOT intend the complete exclusion of religion (in a non-denominational form) from government.
Gordon - "objective logic" would say that everyone should get one vote for every $1000 in taxes they paid - since if you pump in more dough to the Fed, you deserve a greater say in government operations.
1. My point about the judiciary was NOT that there was a problem with them INTERPRETING the laws passed by the legislature. It was in their LEGISLATING from the bench. Many judges have done this on numerous occassions (the district court out in California being one of the most egretious offenders), often having to be overturned by a higher court.
As the passage you noted provides for - they were intended to interpret the letter and intent of the law, not impose their own de facto laws through their rulings. Hopefully you don't actually believe that judges never attempt to legislate from the bench.
2. An excellent find on the Jefferson speech. However, as noted previously - the various institutionalized uses of religious terms and/or items in documents and ceromonies and (most significantly) that Congress has ALWAYS had a chaplain open its sessions with a prayer - one could reasonably question what meaning Jefferson might have had in his "separation" statement.
Clearly he expected government to be inhibited from establishing a state religion or impairing people from the free exercise of their religion of choice. But so far I haven't seen any reference to the intended total exclusion of religion.
In fact, since "religion" has NEVER been completely "separated" from government since the inception of the first Continental Congress in 1774, apparently they did NOT intend the complete exclusion of religion (in a non-denominational form) from government.
Gordon - "objective logic" would say that everyone should get one vote for every $1000 in taxes they paid - since if you pump in more dough to the Fed, you deserve a greater say in government operations.
Quote from ArchAngel:
dgabriel - two things:
1. My point about the judiciary was NOT that there was a problem with them INTERPRETING the laws passed by the legislature. It was in their LEGISLATING from the bench. Many judges have done this on numerous occassions (the district court out in California being one of the most egretious offenders), often having to be overturned by a higher court.
As the passage you noted provides for - they were intended to interpret the letter and intent of the law, not impose their own de facto laws through their rulings. Hopefully you don't actually believe that judges never attempt to legislate from the bench.
2. An excellent find on the Jefferson speech. However, as noted previously - the various institutionalized uses of religious terms and/or items in documents and ceromonies and (most significantly) that Congress has ALWAYS had a chaplain open its sessions with a prayer - one could reasonably question what meaning Jefferson might have had in his "separation" statement.
Clearly he expected government to be inhibited from establishing a state religion or impairing people from the free exercise of their religion of choice. But so far I haven't seen any reference to the intended total exclusion of religion.
In fact, since "religion" has NEVER been completely "separated" from government since the inception of the first Continental Congress in 1774, apparently they did NOT intend the complete exclusion of religion (in a non-denominational form) from government.
Gordon - "objective logic" would say that everyone should get one vote for every $1000 in taxes they paid - since if you pump in more dough to the Fed, you deserve a greater say in government operations.
I don't think that this judge can be accused of legislating from the bench. That is more appropriate when a court issue specific remedies best reserved for legislatures or state bodies. However, the courts have had to step in and issue specific performance remedies as legislatures and executive branches in many cases failed to do so and further refused to do so. Federal and State Courts have had it fall upon them to enforce constitutional rights when the other branches defaulted.
A chaplain stating a prayer in a small legislative body is significantly different than a Nativity display in a town square or a prayer in a public school. Conducting such exercises IS a state endorsement of religion. Congress opens with a prayer, no congressman has had the courage or political tonedeafness to challenge it.
Schools opening with a prayer across the fifty strong is different.
It can be argued that the Pledge issue is extreme, perhaps. So take out the reference to God. Can't an athiest be just as patriotic as a beleiver?
When I undertook jury duty, the court officer asked each of us for an oath " blah blah blah ........under god". WHen someone said, "I take exception to the reference to God", the court officer, said "Do you affirm?" The answer was yes from the juror and that was it.
But the pledge is a group recitation and that is different.
Jefferson spoke of the private nature of faith. Putting religion in our public institutions as a group ritual I beleive violates Jefferson's views.
While mysticism has nothing at all to offer me, just keep in mind that religion can be good for millions of weak minded people.
Irrational mystical beliefs (=any religion) can serve a valid beneficial purpose. To many people, a false sense of purpose feels much better than no sense of purpose. Also GG, it is possible that today some simpleton out there would have stolen from or otherwise victimized you- the only thing restraining him from doing so, was the belief that "Jesus is watching"...
Irrational mystical beliefs (=any religion) can serve a valid beneficial purpose. To many people, a false sense of purpose feels much better than no sense of purpose. Also GG, it is possible that today some simpleton out there would have stolen from or otherwise victimized you- the only thing restraining him from doing so, was the belief that "Jesus is watching"...
I have no words... only letters. They are "U" "K" another "U" a "Y" "C" "F" and an "O" not specifically in that order.
What the hell is wrong with the way things are. Do you wake up in the night in cold sweat because "under god" is in the pledge --- or because of "In God We Trust" is on our money?
Why don't you put your efford and energy into a better cause.
Such as getting rid of third trimester abortion?
- I say this purposely cause you screwballs are against that too.
Or why don't you put that energy into joining the volunteer ambulance corps?
Belief in G-D is something basic to the human nature. Let it be! No-one is making you believe in anything
And other thing.
Why do you think that if you're an atheist you are above religious people who are "simple minded?"
That alone proves that your mind is limited.
What the hell is wrong with the way things are. Do you wake up in the night in cold sweat because "under god" is in the pledge --- or because of "In God We Trust" is on our money?
Why don't you put your efford and energy into a better cause.
Such as getting rid of third trimester abortion?
- I say this purposely cause you screwballs are against that too.
Or why don't you put that energy into joining the volunteer ambulance corps?
Belief in G-D is something basic to the human nature. Let it be! No-one is making you believe in anything
And other thing.
Why do you think that if you're an atheist you are above religious people who are "simple minded?"
That alone proves that your mind is limited.