Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098
mayorsam@mayorsam.org

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Judge declares Pledge unconstitutional

Just came over the wires. Sad.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

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.

33 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said:

From SD Butler:

Not sad at all; the pledge is a secular oath that, as written, did not include any religious references - the "under God" phrase was added in the early 1950s during the Red Scare.

When I held up my hand and took the oath to defend the Constituion against all enemies, it was the duty of a citizen, not of a religious adherent - so if my child pledges allegiance to our nation, why should that be any different?

There is far too much superstition in public life as it is, anyway; reality allows for far more rational decision-making.

September 14, 2005 12:15 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"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."

These God Damning Atheists. Don't like someone to preach their believes on them but sure loves shoving it down everyone elses throat.

September 14, 2005 12:15 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

You can expect la will shake within the next 24 hrs

September 14, 2005 1:21 PM  

Blogger ubrayj02 said:

If someone is an atheist then they probably don't want to swear an oath to a god that they don't believe in. This implies they are "shoving it down everyone elsesthroat"?

Why the intellectual dishonesty with the "poor persecuted Christian" attitude anonymous at 12:15 p.m.?

This whole pledge thing seems to have less to do with anyone's religion, and more to do with a desire to have religion simply have a say in how our daily lives our governed.

After all, how many people have converted to a Christian religion after making the pledge? Those who oppose saying the pledge probably don't want to have to pledge to a god they don't believe in - what is wrong with that?

This whole thing is part of a broader agenda to try and allow Christian religion to exert control over our laws and their enforcement - the way it has for centuries until rather recently.

Otherwise, why not say a pledge to Krishna? Or the deity of your choice as a compromise?

Finally, can we get back to L.A. politics? This national blog fodder crap is annoying and boring. And where is that Alex Padilla expose we were promised?

September 14, 2005 1:32 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This is a national issue, but aren't we in the 9th Circuit too? Won't all our people have to take sides on this soon?

September 14, 2005 1:57 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The Judge reached there correct result because there is no God.

September 14, 2005 2:14 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Get some fuc-ing perspective!

This is not sad! Sad is when children receive a poor education. Sad is the increase in the number of people living in poverty. Sad is watching families go without healthcare, fail to get simple treatments and either become severely disabled or die, leaving behind grieving friends and relatives. Sad is genocide in parts of Africa, marred by disease and famine!

Just because someone doesn't say "under God" does not obliterate the existence of God. I'm a Christian AND an American. I love my country. I love my God. But I'm not going to make others say "under God" in a pledge of allegience to the country if they don't believe in God.

Leaving out "God" in the pledge isn't going to make people less religous. And adding "God" in the pledge isn't going to make people more religious.

September 14, 2005 3:51 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I'm not a believer, but a respecter. Doesn't hurt me to say "under God." I've never known anybody that was hurt by it. My fellow atheists who try to make a problem out of this have their priorities screwed up. We'll get over it, but changing the pledge will be demoralizing and divisive. People will be audibly saying different pledges, I bet, for years to come.

September 14, 2005 4:01 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

3:51 - Those things you care about aren't helped at all by this ruling or the lawsuit that led to it. On the contrary, this ruling hands conservatives who oppose your agenda a meaningless issue to distract us with, and a weapon to use against Democrats.

September 14, 2005 4:07 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

3:51 - Those things you care about aren't helped at all by this ruling or the lawsuit that led to it. On the contrary, this ruling hands conservatives who oppose your agenda a meaningless issue to distract us with, and a weapon to use against Democrats.

September 14, 2005 4:07 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Forget about athiests! What about Buddhists? Muslims? anyone else who follows a different religios teaching? The oath should have one purpose--swear allegiance to ones country. Not to affirm a particular religious teaching.

September 14, 2005 4:18 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This nation was founded on God, but that's another story.

The first amendment says that Congress should neither respect an establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.

Forcing people to say under God violates the first part, taking it out violates the second part.

Someday those whose religion has been forcibly taken from them will remember.

September 14, 2005 4:44 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"God" isn't very particular. Muslims worship the same God. Are any of these other religions actually complaining? It seems to always be a whiny atheist.

September 14, 2005 4:46 PM  

Anonymous Epicurus said:

.
Think of 9/11, and Katrina, and then consider this:

The Riddle of Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

September 14, 2005 4:56 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I'm sure any day now Fabian, Gilbert and Jackie G. will pass legislation to find the US Constitution "un-constitutional" on the grounds that none of the founding fathers were either gay,american indians, muslims, or undocumented migrants.
Next will be the removal of all national symbols like the flag and the Declaration of Independance re-written in 27 languages.

September 14, 2005 5:24 PM  

Blogger Mayor Sam said:

5:24 -

Only if its less than 200 pages.

Cheers!
Mayor Sam

September 14, 2005 5:40 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

hey Sam: stick to city gossip. u dont have a clue about the First Amendment.....

September 14, 2005 5:44 PM  

Blogger True Blue said:

Thank Goddess for the 9th Circuit!

September 14, 2005 7:34 PM  

Blogger joseph mailander said:

Can any nighthawks here help me for a minute?

Will you please go to our website:

Martini Republic

And let me know either via email or in this thread if you can see our site, or if you get a "There is no website configured at this address" message.

Thanks much, and sorry to intrude.

Joseph Mailander
joseph.mailander@gmail.com

September 14, 2005 8:55 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

When you click to your site Martini Republic, I got a Trojan Horse

Please do not tell anyone else to click on that...you will damage your data.

September 14, 2005 9:22 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Virus Profile: Exploit-ByteVerify

September 14, 2005 9:33 PM  

Blogger joseph mailander said:

Sorry--we thought we had fixed that by changing the server. It apparently does it for some machines but not for most. But what I really want to know is, did you see the usual Martini Republic page, or something else?

September 14, 2005 9:33 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Hi Joseph,

When I clicked, I saw

"There is no website configured at this address" message."


Hope this helps.

September 14, 2005 9:36 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

9:22 PM

This a a low threat level trojan, see here, don't worry so much, just clean it out of your computer.

Risk Assessment
- Home Users: Low
- Corporate Users: Low
Date Discovered: 4/9/2003
Date Added: 4/22/2003
Origin: Unknown
Length: Varies
Type: Trojan
SubType: Exploit
DAT Required: 4258

September 14, 2005 9:37 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The closet gay politicians in Los Angeles must coordinate a coming out party.

September 14, 2005 9:46 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=16766

September 14, 2005 10:11 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This thread went totally Godless. A sign of some sort?

September 14, 2005 10:17 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This is nothing more than a colossal waste of time and a complete waste of our national discourse. I can understand why somone might have concerns about church-state issues and in genearl the 'culture war' in our country but in my opinion spending all ones attention on what are such minor things like for example G-d in the pledge of allegiance or any other of these 'cultural' issues waste time that could be spent on poverty, on education, on etc. All this shit does is leeds further polarization-people of faith feeling shut out- atheists feeling shut out. Talk about the stuff that matters not a small cross on a seal- or a single word in a pledge that's been there without people suing for 50 years.

-- Charlie Carnow

September 14, 2005 10:26 PM  

Blogger joseph mailander said:

Thanks for your comments, I think everything is under control now. As for the instant matter here, I think that "under God" neither helps nor hurts, but the act of pledging allegiance itself, standing there with your hand over your heart and swearing as though taking an oath--one before God, at that--is a silly thing to expect a child to do meaningfully. It's too much like repeating a creed. There must be some way to enable kids to express love of country without making them do the highly adult-like thing of swearing an oath of allegiance.

September 14, 2005 11:10 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I'm really old because when I was younger, we didn't say "under god". That happened when I was in about 4th grade. Then I was a midwestern church goer because my mother made me do it.

Now I am an atheist who is slightly irritated by it, but I never say it anyway. I pause while everyone else says "under god" and then I pick it back up with the word "indivisible".

I taught my children to do the same.

I don't think atheists were irritated about it as much until the Christian Right became too involved in our national politics and try to force their agenda on everyone. Now we're obstinate.

Christians are the LEAST tolerant group of people in the nation and I can speak on that because I lived it for many years.

September 15, 2005 12:24 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

From Wikipedia:

In 1954, after a campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus, Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan sponsored a bill to amend the pledge to include the words under God, to distinguish the U.S. from the officially atheist Soviet Union, and to remove the appearance of flag and nation worship.


I haven't said the pledge since as a child I came to the realisation that it currently functions, in part, as an endorsement of state religion. With all of the misguided attempts currently striving to force religion (specifically Christian faith) into areas where it is totally unappropriate (schools, courts, etc...) it's good to know that rational thought still survives in some parts of our government.

September 15, 2005 1:12 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Does anyone know the length of time an actual "pledge of allegience" lasts? I mean, since children have to recite it everyday, does that make it good for only 24 hours?

Also, if we truly are "one nation under God" - does that suggest that God endorses the nation's development and use of weapons of mass destruction against other humans (i.e., missiles, nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, etc.)?

Lastly, is this to also imply that other nations are not "under God" and are lesser, immoral, impure and quite possibly deserving of the misfortune they may face?

Does God favor our nation over others? Does God even recognize such sovereignties? Is heaven divided into nations? Hmmmmm????

September 15, 2005 5:39 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The soulution is simple: There should be a set period for students to recite the Pledge and such in SILENCE. If a student does not believe in reciting the oath, then they can remain silent.

August 21, 2006 4:04 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Advertisement

Advertisement