Recitation of Pledge Found Unconstitutional... Again

[MODU]

Time to burn our historical documents to ensure there are no references to any type of religion. 

Fortunately, this another crack-pot California ruling and will be overturned (yet again).

[MODU]

Time to burn our historical documents to ensure there are no references to any type of religion.

That is not an accurate description of the effect of this ruling. The judge explicitly indicated that "under God" was constitutional.

I was just trying to sound as absurb as the ruling.  Sorry for not clarifying. 

[MODU]

I can just imagine how people today would react when not only "under God" is said in the pledge, but also prayer followed right after the pledge . . . like it was back when I was in school.  Of course, none of my peers felt like they were being forced into believing something that they didn't.  They were proud to say the pledge, and remained silent during the time allotted for prayer.

[MODU]

I applaud this ruling. The phrase "under God" has no business in the pledge and should be removed. Government endorsement of religion/monotheism is simply unacceptable regardless of what the ignorant Fox News-watching masses might think.

So, shall we burn all the documents in the National Archives where the founding fathers mention God/Creator?

[MODU]

I applaud this ruling. The phrase "under God" has no business in the pledge and should be removed. Government endorsement of religion/monotheism is simply unacceptable regardless of what the ignorant Fox News-watching masses might think.

So, shall we burn all the documents in the National Archives where the founding fathers mention God/Creator?

You are twisting what he is saying. The personal views of the founders do not constitute an "endorsement of religion" (to use his words).

Yet it happens every day.  There is a difference between "endorsing religion" and "establishing a national religion."   The second one is unconstitutional.  The first one is not.  And, who is to say what religion is being endorsed?  "God" is a religious netural term, except for religions that worship the earth or multiple gods. 

[MODU]

Yet it happens every day.  There is a difference between "endorsing religion" and "establishing a national religion."   The second one is unconstitutional.  The first one is not.

"Respecting the establishment of religion" is different from "establishing religion." The former is in the Constitution, not the latter.

So, it's not an issue, since no religion is being established.

[MODU]

I have to disagree. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

In this case, respecting means regarding.  Congress cannot pass laws that would establish, or to go as broadly as endorsing, a national religion.  This was one of the reasons why many came to the Colonies to begin with, since the Church of England gained too much power and was intollerant of others. 

Additionally, it cannot pass laws that would infringe upon the freedom of religion either.  Since stating "Under God" is not specific to one religion, and therefore does not violate the First Amendment.  If people have a problem saying those two words, they can easily take a breath and continue on with the rest of the pledge with everyone else.  God is a religion-neutral term.  While Christianity primarily uses this term in the Bible, the Jews, Islamists, and some Indian religions in the US also use the term.  Now, if we said "under Allah" or "under Yahweh" or even "under Jehovah," then that would be a violation of the First Amendment since it singles out a particular religion.