Moderateman Moderateman

This is Exactly What's Wrong With America!!

▼

This is Exactly What's Wrong With America!!

Activist Judges!! California's Shame!!

from JoeUser Forums
.. District Judge Lawrence Karlton rules in favor of atheist Michael Newdow.

This is a perfect example of what Plagues the United States, One man on a personal mission to destroy God and one Judge with no sense ruling in favor of this complete waste of human flesh.

There is something inherently wrong when a small percentage of people What I like to label the Godless ones can ram there views down the throat of the vast majority of Americans that DO believe in GOD>!!!

Just another reason to hate living in such a LIBERAL state filled with liberal activist judges legislating law from the bench!!!

How can ONE judge assume that the MAJORITY of people would even begin to agree with this heinous decision is beyond me.

The courts have grown much to powerful and are not shy about exercising that power either.

This is a prime example of Democracy gone wrong and something that needs to be addressed and corrected, we need to take back the power of LAWMAKING from the courts and put it where it belongs in the hands and votes of the PEOPLE!!!
30,706 views 119 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
no one makes anyone recite the pledge, for the last time!
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
Courts rule on cases they are given, Para. Do you think they have the right to crawl over US law like some search engine and arbitrarily pick federal legislation to overturn?. You can bet you'd not like it if they did.


No, but they can look at a case and say "we have no jurisdiction over the specifics of this case". They should have done that the first time this went up the judicial ladder. The Supreme Court deciding that Newdow had no right speaking on behalf of a daughter he has no custody of was a direct reprimand to the 9th Circuit for being too stupid to notice that little detail themselves.

Shadesofgrey:
The courts are not allowed to direct Congress to pass laws--what they can do is rule whether or not something is unconstitutional.


Right, so why don't they rule that the law is unconstitutional, instead of letting the unconstitutional law stand and making more unconstitutional decisions around it?

But that would be too simple for the scum.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
no one makes anyone recite the pledge, for the last time!


So, when a four year old is taught in school by a teacher that everyone says the pledge every morning and this is how it goes, you are saying that doesn't violate the parents right to direct their children's religious education?

We are talking about schools here. That is important to remember. We are talking about impressionable young minds.

Where are all the parents who get up in arms about the "gay agenda" and "tolerance" being forced down their kids throats? What? It only works one way? You get to deride what educators say when you don't agree, but it is fine when it clearly violates the 1st amendment because it doesn't bother you?

From the 2002 ruling:
"To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 -- monotheism."


Why, when I swear my allegiance to my country, to I have to evoke God?
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
Right, so why don't they rule that the law is unconstitutional, instead of letting the unconstitutional law stand and making more unconstitutional decisions around it?


Now you've got me confused. The case that Newdow has filed challenges "the constitutionality of 4 U.S.C. § 4, which codifies the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance, and the practices of four California public school districts requiring students to recite the Pledge." (that is a quote from the ruling filed by Judge Karlton).

So he's doing exactly what you want him to do--trying to get the codified (ie law version) of the Pledge to be deemed unconstitutional.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
#54 by shadesofgrey
Thursday, September 15, 2005


no one makes anyone recite the pledge, for the last time!


So, when a four year old is taught in school by a teacher that everyone says the pledge every morning and this is how it goes, you are saying that doesn't violate the parents right to direct their children's religious education?


as long as it is not mandatory to recite it, how does that infringe on parental rights? cannot a parent simply tell the child DO NOT SAY UNDER GOD. although to press that crap on a child should be considered child abuse, put your kid on the spot, sure force them to be Godless!
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm merely pointing out that the monkeys in the 9th Circuit could have merely struck down a federal law, which would leave the question where it belongs (at the local level).


Federal money is spent in local schools, which make local schools libel to federal laws. That is why I personally believe vouchers should not go to Religious schools. If a local school board wishes to force "under God" into the pledge, then they no longer should receive federal funds. That is their choice.

This is a prime example of Democracy gone wrong and something that needs to be addressed and corrected, we need to take back the power of LAWMAKING from the courts and put it where it belongs in the hands and votes of the PEOPLE!!


Well, see....the liberal judges do often seem to rule more from personal opinion rather than constitutional law, which is what they're supposed to do.


Some people believe that this liberal judge is upholding the Constitution; he is striking down a law ("addition of under God") that that is in direct violation of the Constitution about the Government instating a religion. If you want your majority of have "under God" added again, please do it the right way by adding an amendment. The vote is still in the hands of the people, the people just need to do it the right way. This peebrain judge was doing his job. Not to do so would IMO make him an activist.

PS: You guys did know that the Judge in this case is a practicing Catholic?

the last poll or survey taken shows over 76% of americans have a belief in GOD.


So that would make Atheist that same percentage as the largest single organized religion in the US. (Catholics are 24.6%) For all the complaining I here about how vast a minority Atheist are, I think one out of four people is not that much of a minority.

Baker, I agree with you 100%. This shows how a person does not have to be a liberal to believe religion should not be in federally funded schools and the Constitution should be upheld against not only Liberal activist, but also Conservative activist too. It may have taken 50 years for the law to be labeled unconstitutional, but I for one am glad.
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
practicing Catholic


obviously he needs MORE PRACTICE.
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
obviously he needs MORE PRACTICE.


MM--I have a problem with that. I am also a Catholic and I support his decision. I don't need to practice my faith in public to have faith, and I don't need the government to help me shove my beliefs on other people--that's not the christian way. I don't think that he needs to "practice more"--I think he's doing just find upholding his religious beliefs and his duty to the constitution at the same time.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
59 by shadesofgrey
Thursday, September 15, 2005


obviously he needs MORE PRACTICE.


MM--I have a problem with that. I am also a Catholic and I support his decision


sorry if I offended you shades was not my intention.
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
sorry if I offended you shades was not my intention


Not offended. Just not in agreement.
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
61 by shadesofgrey
Thursday, September 15, 2005


Not offended. Just not in agreement.


AND AS you already found out I do encourage disagreement , unlike some here I am open to changing my mind.
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now you've got me confused. The case that Newdow has filed challenges "the constitutionality of 4 U.S.C. § 4, which codifies the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance, and the practices of four California public school districts requiring students to recite the Pledge." (that is a quote from the ruling filed by Judge Karlton).

So he's doing exactly what you want him to do--trying to get the codified (ie law version) of the Pledge to be deemed unconstitutional.


No, if they merely struck down the law, then it would be left to the local school boards. They didn't say the law was unconstitutional, they said reciting the pledge itself was unconstitutional. So, instead of using their authority to rule on a federal law, they left the law in place, but told local school boards (which they have no Constitutional authority over) that they cannot recite the pledge of allegience. They didn't even rule to remove the offending words out of the pledge. They simply usurped authority they do not have, instead using authority they do have.
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, if they merely struck down the law, then it would be left to the local school boards. They didn't say the law was unconstitutional, they said reciting the pledge itself was unconstitutional. So, instead of using their authority to rule on a federal law, they left the law in place, but told local school boards (which they have no Constitutional authority over) that they cannot recite the pledge of allegience. They didn't even rule to remove the offending words out of the pledge. They simply usurped authority they do not have, instead using authority they do have.


Actually, the ruling was that the motion to dismiss was denied (in the case of the classroom and granted in other cases).

Also, for the record, if they strike down the law--they eliminate the pledge. The code that they are challenging is the pledge of allegiance.
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think this is something that is right with America. Many of the first settlers who came to our country came here for the express reason of freedom of religion. They wanted the right to believe and practice their religion without government interferrance.

The government should not be in the business of religion. It should be kept separate. I think the judge ruled according to the law and constitution not based on emotions or personal religous beliefs.

What kills me is that the conservatives who want to hammer the judges who don't agree with them hold up the judge in Alabama who refused to remove the ten commandments from his court room as a hero. He was the activist judge - just a conservative one. That's okay.
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top
What kills me is that the conservatives who want to hammer the judges who don't agree with them hold up the judge in Alabama who refused to remove the ten commandments from his court room as a hero. He was the activist judge - just a conservative one. That's okay.


wrong... he was wrong. and should not have fought it the way he did, not upholding the law while a judge is wrong no matter what side of the aisle they sit on!
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
A bumper sticker I saw, " For those who say there is no GOD,they better be right"
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top
67 by COL Gene
Thursday, September 15, 2005


A bumper sticker I saw, " For those who say there is no GOD,they better be right"


I had this picture in my mind when arafat died of him at the pearly gates, when suddenly a voice boomed out {with a jewish accent of course} soooooooo yasser you hate jews do you? well then you go to hell!
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
disagreement is good, but you can believe it or not the godless nazis will be listening for any infractions of the ruling.


What infractions of what rule? If they officially take out the two words, there is nothing, I say again, NOTHING that can be done, legally, to someone that recites the pledge individually, or as a member of a class, with the two words in it. NOTHING. Did you get that? NOTHING. It's called freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Try and stop someone from adding the words back in on their own, personal desires and you have a lawsuit. There will be no law that says it is illegal to personally decide to leave the words in and say them that way, in any context or environment.

No one will be sitting with headphones on that link to hidden mikes in student desks to make sure no one utters the stricken words. People may make sure that no teacher or student forces someone to use the two words, but they won't stop individual students from reciting it any way they choose.

The difference between adding in omitted words and leaving out included words is as I stated above.

The first is freedom of speech and religious practice, which is allowed (to some extent, granted) in public schools.

The second is divisive and leaves children out to be targetted for their (non) beliefs.
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top
no one makes anyone recite the pledge, for the last time!


Peer pressure is a bitch.
Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top
So, when a four year old is taught in school by a teacher that everyone says the pledge every morning and this is how it goes, you are saying that doesn't violate the parents right to direct their children's religious education?

We are talking about schools here. That is important to remember. We are talking about impressionable young minds.

Where are all the parents who get up in arms about the "gay agenda" and "tolerance" being forced down their kids throats? What? It only works one way? You get to deride what educators say when you don't agree, but it is fine when it clearly violates the 1st amendment because it doesn't bother you?


That's much better put than my peer pressure response. Good on you!
Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: chiprjPosted: Thursday, September 15, 2005no one makes anyone recite the pledge, for the last time!Peer pressure is a bitch.


that i have to agree with peer pressure kinda sorta led me into a drug life.
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: chiprjPosted: Thursday, September 15, 2005So, when a four year old is taught in school by a teacher that everyone says the pledge every morning and this is how it goes, you are saying that doesn't violate the parents right to direct their children's religious education?We are talking about schools here. That is important to remember. We are talking about impressionable young minds.Where are all the parents who get up in arms about the "gay agenda" and "tolerance" being forced down their kids throats? What? It only works one way? You get to deride what educators say when you don't agree, but it is fine when it clearly violates the 1st amendment because it doesn't bother you?That's much better put than my peer pressure response. Good on you!


agreed and now seeing things a little differently. thanx for all the input.
Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top

"but this I believe is too much!"


How? If there were an effort to put "one nation, seeking enlightenment" in the Pledge, people would have a cow.


How? I believe this would be called legislating from the bench. Something the idiot judge is NOT supposed to do.
Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top
Fine--as long as you want your schools to run without federal money (and I mean all federal money, including all education grants).


And why is that? Because federal grants are involved they should have a say? Baloney! That would be like them telling me how to run my life because I got a Pell Grant.
Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't know what some of you are talking about.

1) These cases start at the local level, and have been appealed higher and higher. In reality, it is the often the people who who want to keep God IN the pledge that appeal to a higher court. It goes back and forth.

2) States can't enact laws that are counter to the constitution. You guys can bitch and moan, but the fact is the pledge is required in California schools:

2. California Statute and School Districts’ Policy
California law requires that each public elementary school in
the State "conduct[] appropriate patriotic exercises" at the
beginning of the school day, and that "[t]he giving of the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall
satisfy the requirements of this section." Cal. Educ. Code
§ 52720.



You can opt out, but that still leaves a state employee in a state school, spending state funds leading the kids in an affirmation of the existence of God. It doesn't matter if you have to say it or not. The act of it being said is wrong.

"That would be like them telling me how to run my life because I got a Pell Grant."


If colleges don't follow federal guidelines, they can't be acredited, and you can't legally spend your pell grant going there. No one is telling the kids how to run their lives, only the institutions that take federal money. By the way, if other activists get their way you won't be able to go to a religiously administrated institution and get government loans or grants.

You guys go on and get all red in the face. I'm beginning to see that the extremes on both sides of the aisle just like to be outraged. Why is unimportant.