9.15.2005

Modern-Day Pledge of Allegiance

We have staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." --James Madison

We have come a long way from what the founders of the nation believed about God. And, we have one more example of that disconnect. I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear that the story comes to us from a court in California.

California courts never cease to amaze me. They have, once again, rendered a foolish decision. Be aware that according to U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton, "under God" is unconstitutional. Funny that it didn't make very big headlines. I heard it on Hugh Hewitt.

Last time this happened, with the Newdow case in the 9th circuit, I was appalled. I have come to expect inane rulings from the courts. Sad, but true.

I wrote a Pledge of Allegiance in honor of the judge in San Francisco and many of his colleagues around the nation.

"Modern-Day Pledge of Allegiance"
I pledge ambivalence
to the Flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic which is attacked
by a nation of Judges
divisible,
with liberty as a license for gall.



"Pledge of Allegiance"
I pledge allegiance
to the Flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.



God, help us!

10 Comments:

At 9/15/2005 06:34:00 AM, Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Um...second version. Definitely.

I'm working on a post regarding this and the LA County Seal cross removal.

 
At 9/15/2005 07:09:00 AM, Anonymous GJ said...

The decision today did not suprise me. In 2002, the 9th circuit court of appeals decided Mr. Newdow's original case in favor of Mr. Newdow. Since this case had essentially the same facts, Karlton was bound by the doctrine of stare decisis to follow precedent and decide in favor of Newdow again.
While I don't think that the words "under God" really harm anyone (as long as children are not forced to say the words), this decision may actually turn out to be exactly what pledge supporters want.
The Supreme Court punted on Newdow's original case, stating that he did not have the proper standing required for the court to hear the case because he did not have full custody of his daughter. Now, the case is ripe for the Supreme court to decide because the plaintiffs have standing, the issue concerns the constitution, and there is a split in the circuits (a 4th circuit judge had ruled that the words "under God" are constitutional). There is no way that the Supreme Court will not hear the case. And with a Supreme Court that will likely be even more conservative than before, I am certain that Mr. Newdow will lose.
btw: the story was headline news. I first saw the story this afternoon on cnn.com under national headlines. Although it was under what I consider to be the more pressing news of the day: Hurricane Ophelia and the Hurricane Katrina clean up.

 
At 9/15/2005 07:28:00 AM, Blogger Dakotaranger said...

Problem is if the judicuary continues the way it's going, it will no longer be a republic but a totalitarian State ruled by an olegarchy of self-important people.

 
At 9/15/2005 07:57:00 AM, Blogger William said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 9/15/2005 08:47:00 AM, Blogger William said...

The plege of allegiance is just as necessary as the national anthem when instilling a sense of national pride within an individual. So, this judge in his furious anger with God decides to dissipate the pledge. Okay. Let me say that in politcally correct terminology. So, this judge in his furious anger with God decides to dissipate the pledge. Supreme Court Judge Nominee Roberts puts it this way, "This judge does not intend to protect our citizens from all things unconstitutional, but this judge intends to declare war upon all things religious."

Catherine Crier, author of Contempt, says, "Liberals are dead." I disagree. It appears to me that liberals have a more prevailing voice than conservatives, because conservatives constantly live under the fear of being labelled intolerant.

With the ruling like the one we have seen, I tend to wonder who indeed is intolerant of whom.

 
At 9/15/2005 11:10:00 AM, Blogger ken said...

Stopped by to take a look. Enjoyed your blog.

 
At 9/15/2005 05:07:00 PM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

wordsmith: i'll be looking for that posting. the attack on God is ridiculous.

gj: yes. my hope is that the Court, led by Chief Justice Roberts, will settle this issue once and for all.

dakotaranger: you're exactly right.

william: well said, my friend.

ken: welcome! :)

 
At 9/15/2005 06:51:00 PM, Blogger Mark said...

Under God.

UNDER GOD!

(sigh)

I hope I finish writing my book before Jesus returns.

Serously, this is one more sign that the apocolypse is upon us.

 
At 9/15/2005 06:52:00 PM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

hey mark, are you really writing a book??? i am too! :)

 
At 9/16/2005 12:14:00 AM, Blogger void said...

It simply gets more outrageous on a daily basis .... stop the world, I want to get off.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home