One Nation Under God

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton has ruled that the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegence is unconstitutional. The suit was brought by Michael Newdow, a doctor, lawyer, and atheist who believes that the very small minority of atheists should have the right to decide what everyone else says and does. I would like to say I am baffeled by this judge but this is what we have come to expect from activist judges. This guy was probably upset that John Roberts is in the spotlight so he acted out.

I am no lawyer but I find it interesting that the judiciary selectively applies our rights under the Constitution. Burning a Flag is Free Speech but saying under God is not. Now before all the liberals whine about the ficticious seperation of Church and state idea, let me say that if the Constitution allows Free Speech and Free exercise of religion then they must both be legal. You can not selectively chose which right to apply. Besides, the issue has been ruled upon before and it was decided that the phrase was patriotic rather than religious.

I remember when I was in high school we started the day off with the pledge led by our principal over the intercom system. They never said ‘under God” so when we got to that part I said it real loud. I always figured the court might decide it can tell schools that they may not lead the pledge using those words but the court can not stop me from saying what I want.

I know there will be someone who will comment that if you burned the Flag at school it would be illegal. Be that as it may, the phrase should be allowed under the law of the land. But I have an idea about this. I say we stop paying Judge Karlton. He works for the government and he gets money that reads “In God We Trust” on it. He should not be allowed to accept the money. To the kids of those schools I say just get up and recite the pledge on your own. Make sure it is before the bell rings or some teacher will get you for disrupting class. But get up and say it loudly. Then pray for God to bless that idiot judge.

Read it here.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

8 Responses to “One Nation Under God”

  1. Adam says:

    Well, is it so wrong to want a school “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God” to quote the judge? I don’t have a real strong stance on this, but I agree with the people want to return to the original version that had no “under God” in it. It is as much a “patriotic exercise” if it doesn’t contain “under God.”

  2. Big Dog says:

    How about the majority who want it in there? How about Congress passed this as a law and for 3 days they have been having a hissy to ensure Roberts will not be activist (using the new definition for activist) and change laws the Congress has passed.

    How about we see how many people are affected and use majority rules? What if a few people decide that they don’t want to learn history or use books in school that teach our ancestors came here because of religious persecution? Slippery slope…

    Atheism is a religion as defined by the Supreme Court so now they get to push their religion on others. Why is this right?

  3. Adam says:

    They aren’t pushing a religion of atheism. That’s just divisive politics you’re preaching. What they do is accept that there are people in America that aren’t Christian. I agree that rulings like these take it too far, but at the heart of this is still the one idea. I’m not a lawyer either so I won’t go any further than to say that I think students shouldn’t be forced into saying “under God.” I guess you could argue that they aren’t forced…

  4. Big Dog says:

    A Christian believes Christ is the son of God. Under God does note Christianity, it demonstrates a belief in a creator. All religions except atheism believe in a God (or Gods). Therefore, the mention of God only affects atheists in a negative way.

    No one forces the small number of children who are atheists to say it but we are forcing children NOT to say it and that would be the large majority affected.

  5. Adam says:

    Well, “under God” is not generic, as in god, or gods. Atheism is not a religion.

  6. Big Dog says:

    Atheism by definition is not a religion just as theism is not. However, that is the layman’s definition. For legal purposes the Supreme Court of the US has determined that atheism is a religion when considered under the context of the First Amendment.
    “The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a ‘religion’ for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions”

    In Wallace v Jaffe the SCOTUS said:

    “At one time it was thought that this right [referring to the right to choose one’s own creed] merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.”

    “As we’ve seen, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals hasn’t declared atheism to be a religion as the layperson might usually define it, they simply acknowledged that atheism hold equal standing with religions with regard to the First Amendment.”Atheist Community

    From a legal standpoint, atheism is considered as equal footing as any established religion when it comes to the First Amendment, though I agree from an other point it lacks the worship of a traditional religion.

  7. Adam says:

    I see now. I think this is an interesting subject. One of the few subjects I won’t get really heated over.

  8. Big Dog says:

    No heated debate, just argument over the idea (argument in the debate meaning). I am pointing out that if we consider the impact of the Amendment on established religions we have to consider that, if the SCOTUS has decided atheism has equal weighting under the law, then they are being allowed to “establish” their religion (in the legal sense) and other religions are not.

    In other words, why are they allowed to dictate what happens when the result honors their religion at the detriment to others?