"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago

A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in
public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the
same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was
rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton

A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of
California
would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during
the
next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of
America.


But not out of touch with the constitution which is quite clear on
this
matter. It beyond me why religious folks - some of them anyway - are
so
insecure in their beliefs that they have to have help from the
government. The gov't should be completely neutral when it comes to
religion. Of course some nitwits thnk that "freedon of religion" mean
you can choose Baptist, Methodist, or Presbeterian.

We're a nation founded in Judeo-Christian values, and most of our laws
are derived from such. There is no portion of the Constitution that
uses
the phrase "Freedom of religion". The amendment says "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

So how does one jump to the conclusion that the Pledge of Allegiance is
a
case of Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion?


The phrase "under God" violates the establishment clause and forces
religion down the throats of those who are in no position to not
participate.

That's absurd. I can think back 25 years to when I was in grade school,
and
even back then, the Jehovah Witnesses in my class did not have to salute
the
flag or recite the pledge.

Why do they have to take the Pledge of Allegiance out of the classroom
rather than simply make it optional for students to participate in? It
worked 25 years ago in my school, so why not now?

Besides the fact that it has nothing to do with the "establishment
clause".....except in the minds of the braindead liebrals