Court rules Pledge of Allegiance 'unconstitutional'

[eisely]

Just couldn't resist adding this post. Some people just never get the word...of all the days to implement this policy. This was in North Carolina.

 

West Stokes high School president Chelsi Zash said she was told by principal Geneva Dockery not to say the phrase "one nation under God" when she led the pledge of allegiance over the intercom on Sept. 11.

 

 

War On Terror: At A Glance

Join A Discussion On A Hot Topic

How Much Is Your Car Really Worth?

 

 

 

Dockery said she thought a California ruling earlier this summer declaring the pledge unconstitutional, which was later withdrawn, applied to North Carolina.

 

Dockery allowed Zash to recite the pledge Thursday saying "one nation under God."

 

 

[Rooster7]

This woman is a great example as to why we have such crazy problems in this country. She is supposed to be an educator, yet she doesn't understand the basic workings of our judicial system...or just as bad, she doesn't take the time to follow up on the major issues of the day. Without a clear understanding of what has happened, she makes a decision that affects the entire school - just to prove her ignorance to the world. A principal like this should be removed from her post. Ignorance is no excuse, especially if you're a high school principal.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

The newspaper report isn't so great, either; a stayed decision has hardly been "withdrawn", it's just pending further court action.

[Venturer2002]

The phrase "separation of church and state" is attributed to Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner, adulterer, and theist. Do any of you agree with adultery or slave ownership?

 

Because the statements he made were never written into law they are just that, personal statements. Not one place have I read that there is a "wall" between Church and State. Because of this I can only stand to believe that in this statement Jefferson abused his authority, acting as if he were in charge of the United States, when actually he was only furthering his own causes.

 

Re-interpretation of this part of the constitution has lead to many degrees of debate. The Government has no authority in matters of theology, likewise the various religious bodies should in no way act as Government officials. The English monarch is the "Defender of the Faith" in that country, and as such is the head of the Church of England. Mainly, as others have so correctly stated, this portion of the constitution was written in to avoid the English situation that they so greatly loathed.

 

The phrase "under god" can mean what you want it to, whether it be the God of Abraham, Allah, any Buddha, Zeus, or even man. Man you say? Yes! For the only logical choice when the afterlife isn't in the picture is for people to institute themselves as "gods" and that is the real heart and soul of this debate, let us not forget it!

 

 

[slontwovvy]

Venturer2002-

 

If when you refer to Thomas Jefferson's "adultery" you refer to the alleged affair with Sally Heming, a point of clarification. It is "alleged." All we know is that her descendents have some Jefferson blood. Now in Thomas' time there were at least 25 other males with Jefferson blood within five miles, many of whom have assured places in history as people who did fool around. Just a point of caution-allegations do not equal proof.(This message has been edited by slontwovvy)

[Twocubdad]

Jefferson also wrote;

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

 

On balance, I'd say Ol' Tom didn't do too bad.

 

Regarding this idiot high school principal, every year or so something like this hits the media. Some bozo badly mis-applies a particular court ruling, usually regarding school prayer. A couple years ago it was some kid who was prohibited from having a Bible in his locker. Before that it was a teacher who stopped a student from silently blessing his lunch. The whole "Meet Me At the Flagpole" movement was started when a prayer group was improperly prohibited from meeting in the school. None of which is prohibited by the courts.

 

I honestly think some of this is an attempt to maliciously stir up controversy. At least I hope these people really aren't this stupid.

[Twocubdad]

One more point --

 

Venturer2002, you wrote, "The phrase "under god" can mean what you want it to..."

 

No, it can't.

 

First of all, the plain meaning of the words does mean something. I won't bore you with a quote from Websters, but "under God" means subservient to God. Secondly, look back at the earlier posts regarding the original legislative intent of the words. It was intended to differentiate us from the "godless commies."

 

And lastly, as a religious person, why would you want it to mean "anything you want it to"? If can mean anything, then it means nothing. If it has no meaning, then why included it in the Pledge? When you recite "one nation under God," don't you want it to mean exactly that?

[evmori]

Folks,

The phrase "separation of church & state" appears nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. This is an interpretation by the Supreme Court based on statements made by Thomas Jefferson. Actually, separation of church & state is a violation of the 1st Ammendment of the Constitution.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[slontwovvy]

Very good point, evmori. The phrase "separation of church and state" was first used by Jefferson in the letter to a Baptist group in Danbury, Connecticut. Oddly enough, what Jefferson was attempting to reassure them about was the intrusion of the state into religion, not the other way around, as is commonly believed.

 

"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."

 

The only things the actual document says is that Congress cannot establish a national religion nor force anyone to adhere to a certain faith. Funny how so many people can be led into believing that the Constitution says something it doesn't. Tell that to the people of New England, who funded churches with state and federal money up to the 1840's.

 

Some more food for thought from George Washington's farewell address:

 

George Washington, writing in his Farewell Address, said, Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

 

He also wrote, Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.

[Rooster7]

Venturer2002,

 

I generally agree with your posts, but I cannot agree with your portrayal of Jefferson. As for him being an adulterer, this may or may not be true. I am skeptical because it seems every President of noteworthiness is accused of this sin. Give it enough time, and they (historians and/or the media) will be saying the same things about Jimmy Carter, George Bush, and others. I would not causally label him as such. Perhaps he deserves the label, but I don't think we know enough to give it to him. Some say Martin Luther King was an adulterer. Even if true, if I had to label him, it would be "civil rights leader", not adulterer. We should thank God that our neighbors don't know all of our sins. Otherwise we'd all be walking around with some sort of ugly label attached to us. As for Jefferson being a slave owner, I don't think it's appropriate that we judge him on this either. One, we did not live in that era. We really don't know how we and/or anyone else from our time would have behaved during the same time period. Two, we don't know his motives or his heart. He may have been an extremely compassionate person. For all we know, he treated those slaves like family. Obviously slavery is wrong. Nevertheless, I think it's unfair to slap that label on Jefferson without viewing it in historical context, and without noting the man's character. How do you think he treated those slaves? My wife recently watched a special on the supposed slave descendents of Thomas Jefferson. When asked how they felt about Jefferson being a slave owner, every one of them recognized Jefferson's character as a man and noted the historical circumstances. Finally, as for Jefferson's agenda, his view on "separation of church and state" was actually very similar to yours. The left, to further their cause, has twisted the meaning of his writings.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[ASM7]

All of this talk of Jefferson's adultery may not be warranted. According to birth and death records, Jefferson's wife Martha, who was Sally Heming's half sister by her father, John Wayles, died on 9/6/1782. Sally's first child was born in 1790, eight years later. Sally's mother was a mulotto and Sally and her sister were said to be almost white with long straight hair down their backs. Martha was a widow when she married Jefferson. Jefferson was a widower when this all supposedly happened, so do we still consider him an adulterer? Yes , if adultery is sex out of wedlock. Did he cheat on his wife? That depends on your religious beliefs. Do you have to maintain your marital vows after your spouse dies? It's a personal opinion issue.

Doug

[packsaddle]

Rooster7, great reply! But I am not sure what you mean by 'the left'...in another place or time it could mean the opposite of what you mean, if you know what I mean.

Venturer2002, I want to inform you that slavery and deceit in any form are wrong...do you really doubt this? I really can't accept that they are good under any circumstance and I don't understand why anyone would advocate such. Jefferson's intent seems clear to me, preserve as much individual liberty as possible while obeying the two great commandments (St. Mark 12:30-31) as well as the golden rule. That he formed his ideas during that time in history is remarkable and I wonder who today would be his equal. That we tolerate the nonsense that is expressed in this forum for example, mine included, is a testament to the value and power of Jefferson's legacy to all of us. Packsaddle

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

The only things the actual document says is that Congress cannot establish a national religion nor force anyone to adhere to a certain faith.

 

No, what the actual document SAYS is what you quoted earlier:

"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."

 

Funny how so many people can be led into believing that the Constitution says something it doesn't.

 

Funny how you insist it only refers to *A* national religion, when it says "establishment of religion". The supreme court does not agree with your rather narrow, limited-rights interpretation, when it said in Everson v. Board of Education:

 

The `establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.

 

[Zorn Packte]

The `establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

 

Sorry Bullwinkle, Supreme Court not withstanding, you really don't understand the English language. As a verb, "establish" means to "set up or found." Hence, the government can make no laws regarding setting up or founding religions. It is not prohibited from putting The Ten Commandments" on the wall of the court house or from having a manger scene in front of town hall.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The `establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

 

Sorry Bullwinkle, Supreme Court not withstanding, you really don't understand the English language. As a verb, "establish" means to "set up or found." Hence, the government can make no laws regarding setting up or founding religions. It is not prohibited from putting The Ten Commandments" on the wall of the court house or from having a manger scene in front of town hall.

 

Both I and the supreme court disagree. Guess what that means?

 

Besides which, it's a terrible idea to have the government attempt to tell its citizens which gods they "ought" to believe in; you end up where the local tinpot dictator has his religion plastered all over, and damn the rest.

 

Look at Ogden, Utah; they have the ten commandments up, and initially refused to allow a summum group to put up their religious tenets. The circuit court told them they either had to allow all religious views or take down the ten commandments. But the city is fighting to keep ONLY the religious tenets of the "favored" religion on display on public property. They'll lose, but not after burning up more of the public's money.