How People Voted
 |
 |
38% For, 62% Against
Take Action
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 699, The Pledge Protection Act of 2007 (6 comments ↓)
- This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
H.R. 699 would amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts over certain cases and controversies involving the Pledge of Allegiance.
()
Learn More
Trackback URL: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/trackback/110_HR_699.html
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
Jerry
I would be UnAmerican to not support this bill because we Still are a Christian Nation unlike what Obama thinks who thinks we are also a Muslim Nation and so on and need to protect it to keep it a Christian Nation Oh and this doesn't go against the separation of Church and State because the only definition of the separation of the Church and State law would this be wrong under would be the ALCU's definition but they have one problem they don't know how to read the Consution they only know how to distort it
Dragonish
Any law which restricts the ability of a citizen to petition through the courts diminishes the rights of all citizens. The exemptions appear to be for political reasons. On a humorous note, would that mean that all cases should be filed in the District of Columbia??? This is another silly attempt to limit freedom of thought and rational debate in this country.
Someone
Jerry is an idiot. Just because he is Christian, it doesn't mean there are no religions besides Christianity. Muslims and Jews exist too. And the Supreme Court actually ruled that saying "under God" is a volation of the first amendment. Dragonish has lots more sense.
Bruce
Last I heard Muslims and Jews believe in God too. The person who might be offended here is the atheist. Including in the pledge an acknowledgement of a supreme being seems genuine to me, and it seems to have historic validity. Just read the works of our early leaders, constitution writers, law makers, etc. Were they all wrong? I'm a Christian, but am not so naive to believe that all our founding fathers were. But they do seem to universally acknowledge a supreme being. That's what we're doing in the pledge as it now exists.
Jeffrey
My Congressman Tom Price co-sponsered this legislation. To begin with "Under God" was not in the pledge of allegiance till the 1940's. Second, passing a Law that says the Judicial Branch can not hear cases on a subject is a wrong and is nothing more than a political stunt. Third, At the end of the day I do not want my elected officals wasting time on this when there are actual important things that need to be done.
James
Actually the legislation to add "under God" was passed in 1954. I suggest you read the sermon from George Docherty that President Eisenhower heard. We are a Christian nation that allows religious liberty. The Constitution says "freedom of religion" not freedom from religion. If someone chooses to disagree with our Christian principles that is their choice. It doesn't mean the rest of us have to give up what we believe to please them. We have truly become the United States of the Offended.