U.S. District Court judge chooses to leave God out of the Pledge of Allegiance

By Ben Thompson

Today, Wednesday, September 14, 2005, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that school children could not say the words "under God" while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school. He based his decision on the false premise that using the words "under God" somehow violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

First of all, parents should teach their children the meaning of the First Amendment — that is, that in this country we are free to express ourselves however we wish, as long as it does not directly cause some kind of irreparable harm to someone else.

Second, parents should teach their children that everyone has the right to their own opinion and that if we don't like someone's particular opinion we should say so or ignore them.

Third, this judge is simply used "raw judicial power" to make up rights that just don't exist.

To the contrary, the original intent of our Founding Fathers was clear. This is and always should be a Christian nation because true Christian principles protect everyone's rights, especially the right to disagree.

Karlton claimed that he was required to follow the precedent set by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow's untenable claim that it is unconstitutional to recite the pledge in public schools.

In 1789, the United States Congress voted this resolution: "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."

This was an accepted practice in schools at the time of our revolution-

Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian, including the first, Harvard University, chartered in 1636. In the original Harvard Student Handbook, rule number 1 was that students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so that they could study the Scriptures: "Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies, is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation for our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."

Now just who better understands the original intent of our Founders Judge Karlton or the 1789 Congress?

"Nothing has yet been offered to invalidate the doctrine that the meaning of the Constitution may as well be ascertained by the Legislative as by the Judicial authority."
— James Madison (speech in the Congress of the United States, 18 June 1789)

Reference: Original Intent, Barton (365); original The Debates.

The three branches of government are supposed to be balanced but from the beginning of this nations judicial history tyrannical judges have tried to usurp the power of We the People and of Congress.

"One single object...[will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." — Thomas Jefferson

The Constitution itself uses the words "our Lord." I suppose that one of the next items on these leftist judges agenda will be to declare the Constitution unconstitutional. In essence they have already done so.

Even some of our brighter comic strip writers recognize this fact:

Judge to attorney: " 'The Constitution'? ...We don't have time for nostalgia today." — Bob Thaves in the comic strip "Frank & Ernest."

Judge Laurence H. Silberman, a semiretired judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, summed up our present situation succinctly, "The court's policy choices masquerading as constitutional law are generally accepted so long as they are well received by elites. Ironically, the Supreme Court has become what the framers envisioned for the role of the Senate. I think elite public opinion is the primary guide to the Supreme Court."

It all comes back to whether or not the guiding governing principles of this nation are based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In 1811 a case (People vs. Ruggles) came to the Court which dealt with a man who had gone into a fit of profanity. It was not a moment of anger or temporary loss of control, for he had taken the time to write it out and distribute it. It maliciously and capriciously attacked Jesus Christ in the vilest of terms. The Court explained the problems with his writings: an attack on Jesus Christ was an attack on Christianity; and an attack on Christianity was an attack on the foundation of the country; therefore, an attack on Jesus Christ was an equivalent to an attack on the country! The man was sentenced to 3 months in prison and a fine of $500.00 (a princely sum in those days) for attacking the country by attacking Jesus Christ.

The question begs then, did the Supreme Court recognize the United States as a Christian nation? Well, in 1892 the US Supreme Court made this ruling in a case. (Church of The Holy Trinity vs. The United States.) "No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is a Christian nation."

What are We the People to do?

It's no big secret. True patriots need to unite and start brushfires of freedom wherever we live, throughout the country.

We need to attend our city council and county board meetings and speak out.

We need to car and bus pool to our state capitols to put great pressure on our state legislators.

We need to call, write, email and visit our U.S. representatives and senators and demand that they impeach and throw out any and all judges who dare undermine the principles of the Constitution.

If we make such efforts often and consistently our elected officials and the elites of our society will eventually get the message that they need to take very seriously their oath to uphold, at all levels of government, the Constitution of the United Sates of America.

© Ben Thompson