Why did liberals ban the pledge in California?
952395
Liberals do not like the "under God" line in it.  After all.... they think they are gods and do not want to be reminded that here is one and they are not him.  Then, they might have to humle themselves before Him.\n\nSue
838336
Ever hear of the First Amendment.  Banning the Pledge of Allegiance is a violation of free speech.  If you don't want to say it then don't say it.  How can you ban someone from saying the Pledge of Allegiance if they want?  Besides if you don't like your country then leave. If things are so bad here then we don't want you.  They are nothing but a bunch of punk liberals!
979857
Because of the continual decline of our society. The loud voice of the whining few seems to overshadow the quite rumbling of the vast majority. There is little national pride being instilled into our youth today. They do not understand what the flag means and the costs that were paid to provide people with the right to complain about the word God being said during the pledge.
66898
The following is text of the letter that Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut: "I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." It is true that the Constitution never states the phrase "seperation of church and state", but it is hard to play semanitics on such plain language and infer that this is not what the founders had in mind. So there is a legal obligation to seperate church and state. Congress can not choose a favorite nor limit any religion from practicing its beliefs.
410898
Nowhere does it say (even though Jefferson said it in private or so called public papers)that church & state should be separated to the point where you remove any reference to God, the Ten Commandments, prayer, Nativity scenes, Christmas trees, etc. from all schools, government buildings, etc.  The meaning of separation is that the Federal Government will NOT force anyone to believe or practice the Christian religion, like if you don't want to pray while others are, or recite the pledge of allegiance saying "under God", fine.  You don't have to.  You can even leave the room & come back after they're finished.  But it doesn't mean the government should stop anyone from praying, displaying the Ten Commandments, pledging "under God", displaying Nativity scenes, showing Christmas trees, etc. You should also be allowed to wear any symbol of your religion while attending school--as long as it does not promote violence against others.  Just because you oppose homosexuality does NOT mean that you are violently opposed to it.  Also, homosexuals have no right to FORCE anyone to live their lifestyle or commit homosexual acts with them.
1016740
It has nothing to do with liberals.  This was established a long time ago and it is an antiquated law.  But no one has the guts to change it.
1059208
Your question contains a portion of the current pledge of allegiance.  The words "under God" were not added untl 1954.  The original pledge was written by a Christian Socialist and later modified.  \n\nOur founding fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson, understood how a state religion could be used to deny freedoms or create an alternative form of government within the government.  One of my favorite Jefferson quotes is as follows: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."  Here's another: "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
927847
Because liberals, like most people, are ignorant when it comes their own political ideology. I believe a lot of liberals haven't really thought about their positions hard enough to see the inconsistency. \n\nThey don't like the idea of the government telling them who they can sleep with, but they have no problem with the government telling them who they can do business with, and under what terms. They don't like paying to promote certain religious positions with tax dollars, but don't see anything wrong with tax dollars going to support certain cultural or artistic positions (i.e. art subsidies).\n\nThough tangerine is partly right; conservatives are just as guilty of being hypocrites. You can't really argue that the state must regulate our behavior to make us "moral", but that it shouldn't regulate our behavior to make us "fair."
725302
Under the First Amendment, the government cannot expend funds to promote any particular religion.  If Christkindlmarket Chicago depends on state funding to conduct the festival, then it was probably the only option.
313505
It transfers funds and power from the teachers unions to local churches. This is the big one. It also punishes the lower income communities through learning and test scores. What is happening is mostly the African American community school districts funds are being transferred to the wealthier school districts. All after school program funding was cut and transferred to the churches to distribute. It's un-constitutional with the separation of Church and State. The document is 1000's of pages, and it will take a staff of lawyers to understand it. Each State also has there version that is attached as riders to the document. This law has to be removed, and real soon.
1158235
I think it is because our country was founded by men who were deeply religious, posessed good moral values and truly believed that the constitution that they created would be the most fair blueprint for a new country.\nI think that when they declared a separation of church and state,  they really meant that no religion would ever rule the people, such as the christian religion used to, and the Islamic religion wants to. I do not believe that they meant that there could be no religious symbols in courthouses, or schools. After all, we do have the freedom to worship as we please. If i choose not to believe in the ten commandments, then the statues don't mean anything to me. Just as the roadside memorials to accident victims with crosses, wouldn't mean anything to me. They are just reminders.  To remind us that killing, adultery, theivery and the others are immoral. And the in god we trust on the money should remind us everytime we spend a dollar, that it is by the grace of god, christian or whatever you worship, that you have a dollar to spend. I think that all religions, except the dark ones, try to help us all reach a higher moral standard, the teachings are different, but mostly the desired outcome is the same.
1084960
Probably because it's California, liberal welfare.
911519
When our forefathers created our government with "seperation fo church and state", they were trying to PROMOTE religion! The idea was to allow people to believe in a faith of their choosing. (Keep in mind that back then, many nations, such as England, had a government endorsed religion.) It was never intended to prohibit religion.\n\nWe ARE one nation, under God. We have the freedom to choose how we believe and worship God, but God is central to the reason why our government arose in the first place. The pledge stays! Even if they TRY to remove it, we will be vocal and recite the original version with pride!
105485
you know the pledge has already been changed once. "under God" was added I believe in 50's or 60's Anyways why does America keep messing with a good thing. Not saying that we should take it out just leave it as is.
55643
I'd rather we didn't force our students to pledge their allegiance to anything.  that is the domain of Fascists.  But if we must, I'd prefer children thought more about the Constitution than the flag.\n\nAs for "under God", it was added 60 years after the pledge was first written, by religious zealots that specifically wanted a prayer. And the last I checked, "Godly principles" were all about Kings, something our gov't was specifically designed to prevent.  Unless there is some portion of the Bible you can cite that supports a Gov't not run by a King, shutup about your "Godly" nonsense.
884821
I did some brief research and here is the best answer I can come up with in a few minutes: Washington has no civil-law (Spanish, French) tradition. It can be assumed that its community property concept came by way of California. If I had not done the research, I would have thought that its adoption of CP was to take advantage of income splitting for federal income tax; I recall from a lecture of years ago that CP was enacted in several states for that reason, and that Congress then made income splitting (joint returns) generally available to married couples.)\n\nIn fact, Washington CP dates from territorial times: a law of 1869, repealed in 1871 and substituted by "marital partnership". In 1873 that law was repealed and 5 days later the 1869 law was restored.\n\nOf course you may not be referring to community property at all, but to "common law marriage", in which case the answer is "not in modern times, at least not for other than tribal Native Americans": http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/2/objectId/709FAEE4-ABEA-4E17-BA34836388313A3C/catId/697DBAFE-20FF-467A-9E9395985EE7E825/118/304/192/FAQ/\n\nOr you could simply be asking whether Washington ever embrace the Civil Code, the way Louisiana and Puerto Rico and Quebec do; tthe answer to that is "no". (There was a movement to introduce the codification in California, but it failed; for research on that, look up "David Dudley Field" and the case "Li v. Yellow Cab".)
70365
I dont know how they get away with it,but someone needs to do something about it.My conservative cousin went to a liberal college and they treated him like dirt.He wasnt allowed to voice his opinion at all yet liberals sit on the "freedom of speech" platform when in reality they only accept what they believe.