Quote:WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court preserved the phrase “one nation, under God,” in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.
At least for now, the decision — which came on Flag Day — leaves untouched the practice in which millions of schoolchildren around the country begin the day by reciting the pledge.
The court said atheist Michael Newdow could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter’s school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.
Newdow is in a protracted custody fight with the girl’s mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, the court said. Eight justices voted to reverse a lower court ruling in Newdow’s favor.
Justice Antonin Scalia removed himself from participation in the case, presumably because of remarks he had made that seemed to telegraph his view that the pledge is constitutional.
“When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court.
'Low blow'
“I may be the best father in the world,” Newdow said shortly after the ruling was announced. “She spends 10 days a month with me. The suggestion that I don’t have sufficient custody is just incredible. This is such a blow for parental rights.”
The 10-year-old’s mother, Sandra Banning, had told the court she has no objection to the pledge. The full extent of the problems with the case was not apparent until she filed papers at the high court, Stevens wrote Monday.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the outcome of the case, but still wrote separately to say that the pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas agreed with him.
The ruling came on the day that Congress set aside to honor the national flag. The ruling also came exactly 50 years after Congress added the disputed words “under God” to what had been a secular patriotic oath.
The high court’s lengthy opinion overturns a ruling two years ago that the teacher-led pledge was unconstitutional in public schools. That appeals court decision set off a national uproar and would have stripped the reference to God from the version of the pledge said by about 9.6 million schoolchildren in California and other western states.
Newdow’s daughter, like most elementary school children, hears the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily.
The First Amendment guarantees that government will not “establish” religion, wording that has come to mean a general ban on overt government sponsorship of religion in public schools and elsewhere.
The Supreme Court has already said that schoolchildren cannot be required to recite the oath that begins, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.”
The court has also repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.
White House argued against Newdow
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the language of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court’s precedents make clear that tax-supported schools cannot lend their imprimatur to a declaration of fealty to “one nation under God.”
The Bush administration, the girl’s school and Newdow all asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the case.
The administration had asked the high court to rule against Newdow, either on the legal question of his ability to sue or on the constitutional issue. The administration argued that the reference to God in the pledge is more about ceremony and history than about religion.
The reference is an “official acknowledgment of our nation’s religious heritage,” similar to the “In God We Trust” stamped on coins and bills, Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued to the court.
It is far-fetched to say such references pose a real danger of imposing state-sponsored religion, Olson said.
Newdow claims a judge recently gave him joint custody of the girl, whose name is not part of the legal papers filed with the Supreme Court.
Newdow holds medical and legal degrees, and says he is an ordained minister. He argued his own case at the court in March.
The case began when Newdow sued Congress, President Bush and others to eliminate the words “under God.” He asked for no damages.
On Monday, Newdow said he would continue that fight.
“The pledge is still unconstitutional,” he said. “What is being done to parents is unconstitutional.”
Newdow had numerous backers at the high court, although they were outnumbered by legal briefs in favor of keeping the wording of the pledge as it is.
Both sides react
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said he is disappointed.
“The justices ducked this constitutional issue today, but it is likely to come back in the future,” Lynn said. “Students should not feel compelled by school officials to subscribe to a particular religious belief in order to show love of country.”
On the other side, the American Center for Law and Justice said the ruling removes a cloud from the pledge.
“While the court did not address the merits of the case, it is clear that the Pledge of Allegiance and the words ’under God’ can continue to be recited by students across America,” said Jay Sekulow, the group’s chief counsel.
Congress adopted the pledge as a national patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress added the phrase “under God” more than a decade later, in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold.
Supporters of the new wording said it would set the United States apart from godless communism.
The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624.
This is very good news for a lot of Americans, no doubt about that.
MSNBC
Deceptive thread name. They didn't say that that line should or shouldn't stay in the Pledge. They dodged the question by dropping it on a technicality.a
Deceptive? Not really. While they did throw out the case based on a technicality, it does uphold the line "Under God" for now.
But it's not a definitive ruling. I'm sure now that someone will bring it up again.
Of course someone's going to bring it up again, but the rulling still means that the line is upheld. I do wish that they would have made a definite rulling on the constitutionality of that one line, since it appears they would have voted in favor of it, but I'm satisfied for now.
I think the real feeling is that people think , They were trying to erase and get rid of our belief in "God". But I understand why some would want this removed.
In canada we had The lords prayer and both the canadian and English national anthems, " God Save the queen" . The Lords prayer in school was removed in all provinces except one, Since the jews, Atheist,Non christians had problems with it, Surprisingly the Muslims did not.
God save the queen is gone not because of the religous references, But to show canada's indepedance from England.Also because two anthems and a prayer was time consuming.
I think placing bans in public places like france is going to far, Are you gonna put a kid in detention or suspend him because he made a quiet prayer to himself before he started to eat his food at lunch? Plus isnt it rediculous that you can have facial hair only if its not religous? I think the french law is racist and was directed specifically at the Muslims, Now the Sikes and Huindu all other groups are gonna have to quit school because they wont cut their beards because its a sin in their faith.
Lots of countries have it apparently.
Good. Go back to California and shut up, you stupid person, you.
*raspberry*
The fact that he had the gall to think he could change a historic pledge just because he didn't like the G word. Well you know what, you're in the friggen minority so deal with it. Sheesh.
I giggled like a fool when I saw this.
Not just because they made the right decision, not just because at least this time we didn't take a step backwards as a culture...
...but because it was extraordinarily satisfying to see that annoying, arrogant, self-important atheist prick go home defeated and pouting like the stupid California fuck he is.
To be perfectly honest, I REALLY don't care at ALL about this sort of thing. Keep it, toss it, whatever. Doesn't matter to me. It's been added and dropped many times before and didn't have some drastic effect on America or people's ability to have faith. All I care about is how much money was wasted on such a non-issue here.
Quote: Don't say it? Sure, but you still have to LISTEN!
Oh, for goodness sake. Get over it.
Edit: fuckin a, I thought I was quoting.... crap! Sorry! :(
You changed it to piss off them athiest Soviet commies.
I think what is it Alberta or Saskatchewan or somthing that still has the Lords Prayer every morning in alot of schools, Thats worse.
You also realize that swearing allegiance in itself is a act of worship and devotion.
Quote:You changed it to piss off them athiest Soviet commies.
That is exactly correct.
A Black Falcon Wrote:Don't say it? Sure, but you still have to LISTEN! It's a prayer if there's ever been one and there's no way that it should be in public schools in that form.
So what? The majority of American citizens believes in God in some form, and if you don't, you can't expect them to change on your behalf. That's like demanding that McDonalds stop making burgers because you prefer hot dogs. It's pointless and absurd.
Just shut up and deal with it.
Well damn, I went and turned one of ABF's posts into mine by mistake, I hit the edit button by mistake and didn't realize until I saw my post with ABF's name on it. I tried to fix it but it doesn't appear possible.
Sorry, ABF. I didn't do it intentionally. :(
Thanks for erasing my post... if anyone missed it, I was saying how that line was added for the express purpose of getting Americans to be more religious, and not just as a symbol of our religious heritage, so I don't see how it could possibly be anything other than a very thinly veiled prayer. As ASM said, it's there because they wanted to counter the evil godless commies. Hmm, I am REALLY wondering if it was meant just as a recognition of our religious heritage...
What the Pledge is is a statement in school every day that everyone should be religious and believe in God and if you don't you aren't an American (you're a evil Commie, they'd say when they added it in). I don't think that that is very much in line with freedom of religion... or speech... or separation of church and state...
The Pilgrims came to America to escape religious persecution. Now, we won't have to leave America to escape religious persecution.
But I agree with DJ that it was ridiculous to spend so much money on deciding whether or not we should ban two words from the pledge.
Quote:The Pilgrims came to America to escape religious persecution. Now, we won't have to leave America to escape religious persecution.
No kidding, and now we'e got the ACLU running around the country telling any city or county that it has to remove anything religious from their seals even if it's of a historical nature.
ACLU = teh suck.
The Pilgrims ran to not just escape religious persecution, but to do it themselves. Remember, in Pilgrim areas you had to conform to their religious laws... it wasn't a protest about persecution, but trying to get away from the other guys' so they could do it their way. :)
Those Pilgrims did business with anyone.
The idea of starting a colony is to create your own fresh start and make your own laws. When in Rome do what the Romans do , If you dont like it leave and make your own thing,Which is how things worked then. The Colonies were not a unified country with the same equal laws.They were individual nations doing things there own way.This was before democracy the hole world was like this not just the Pilgrims.
But unlike the rest of the world the Pilgrims just wanted to keep to themselves , They didnt start wars on the other colonist,But they would trade with anyone even their rivals.
Quote:The Pilgrims ran to not just escape religious persecution, but to do it themselves. Remember, in Pilgrim areas you had to conform to their religious laws... it wasn't a protest about persecution, but trying to get away from the other guys' so they could do it their way.
Are you dumb? The official church of England at that time was heavy-handed against religious groups that didn't follow their teachings. The Pilgrims didn't like it so they got some ships together and sailed to America.
You ignored my point. When the Pilgrims arrived, they did exactly the same thing and made it so you had to belong to their church to live in their colonies... they didn't disagree with the idea of controlling which ideas people should live by, just the ones that the mainstream Anglicans had chosen. Their rules were just as heavy-handed towards anyone who wasn't one of them.
How severe was this persecution? Was it simpily your not welcome to live here ? Or did they run at them with Pitch forks and burn them alive like back in europe? Who was there to be persecuted?
I know some of the Pilgrims made freinds with the indians, Traded with them and even needed their help in knowing how to survive in north america.
All them Pilgrim decendants all banded together to fight agaist the english for independance.
The Question is who wants to live with them Pilgrims if you dont believe in their faith?You werent forced to live with them.
America became a melting pot of cultures eventually tolerance began when the constitution was written.
Tolerance? More so than many places but the different parts of the nation were definitely intolerant, just not in the same way. The Pilgrims? They had a lot of laws that made it just about impossible to live there unless you wanted to live like them, such as mandatory (very long) church services on sundays...
Still, the reason they came here was for the specific purpose of escaping persecution by the Church of England.
True. But it's ignoring a big part of the story.
I understand what ABF is getting at , People always seem to think people came here namely the Pilgrims and became such liberty freedom loving folks when in reality they just wanted to have their own seperate state for their own beliefs and theirs solely.
The reason many also came besides escaping persecution, Is the ability to finally have their own private land for themselves and in a way descide their own destiny.
This is a dumb debate. I wouldn't call being forced to listen to the words "under god" in one minute during a school day religious persecution. I, myself, don't really believe in god, or at least one that watches over us and protects us, but still, it wasn't traumatic to me IN THE LEAST to hear the words "under god" during the pledge of allegience every day.
If it were up to me, "under god" would be taken out of the pledge of allegience, simply because it's a pointless line (imo). At the same time, though, I think pressing charges against a school is a waste of money and time. Put up with it and shut up.
I wouldn't sue over it myself or anything, but it'd just be nicer if it wasn't there.
They say God, But Which God?God or Lord is a very vague wording , Under god could mean anything,It could be Zeus or Odin!Jesus even called Satan the God of this system of things.
Personally it should go , Religous leaders dabbeling in politics is the reason for the corruption that has tainted and brought reproach on gods name.Jesus said religious leaders cause a spiritual fornication when they get involved in the politics and doings of mans earthly goverment.
Church and state should stay seperate .
A Black Falcon Wrote:I wouldn't sue over it myself or anything, but it'd just be nicer if it wasn't there.
It'd be nicer?? That's a stupid reason. If we were forcing people at gun point to say "Under God", that I could see, but if you don't agree with it, don't say it, and if it bothers you that much to hear other people say it, then you've really got some sensitivity problems.
When you say the pledge, just skip the part that says under God. I've heard people say "indivisible" in place of under God. It's not a big deal, it's two little words you have to hear once a day. If that's the most important thing you have to worry about, then you've got one hell of an easy life.
I think really, You should let the school board decide to use the current pledge or go back to the old pre 50's pledge or make a new one.
I think let the parents decide what they want and allow the school boards to make the decision on it.
Places populated with majority southern Baptist for exmaple may be more in favour the current pledge and since they make up the majority of people in the school in that area its up to them to decide what to do.
I believe in the everyone should win policy.I dont think a few whiners should decide for everyone.
By 'nicer' I mean 'much more pleasant'. It was annoying to have to listen to that every day... as I said, sure, you don't have to say it yourself, but you have to listen to the other people saying it and that's just as important...
I hear people all the time saying things I don't want to hear.
But this is in school. Normally when someone says something you don't want to hear you have an easy way to not have to listen...
Quote:But this is in school.
School was what I was talking about.
I put up with a lot of stupid things in school that were said all the time myself. I mean, consider the pep rally. If you ask me, that's the biggest waste of time they ever forced me to go to, but it's not like I was FORCED to cheer. Sure, they guilted me about it, saying "what, you don't have any SCHOOL SPIRIT and PRIDE?!", but they didn't make me do anything except be there. No one ever said you had the right not to hear other people say things, ever.
Pep Rallies are idiotic and they shouldn't make anyone go. Fortunately, we only had three (one per year, at homecoming) when I was in highschool; there wasn't one in sophomore year because the year before a bunch of people who had then been juniors did stuff and got it canned the next year (when they were still there)... but they're stupid, so I wasn't exactly sad. :)
I hated them to , I somtimes ditch school for the day since thats all they were doing no clases at all,Went home and relaxed.
Unfortunately unlike ever before , I had a bad habait of jigging in high school.
especially when I changed to a school closer to home that was within walking distance.But surprisingly I would always see people that were jigging too.
I didn't miss a day of highschool, and never skipped a class...
... okay, so it's been a bit different at college, but that was true for highschool. It'd have been true in Jr. High too, but I missed two or three days because of sickness in each of 7th and 8th grades... 6th I also had perfect attendance. :)
In jr high only 3 people had perfect attendance in the hole school.
I didnt Jig then , So it was sickness or another reason like a family vacation.
I feel time much time is wasted in school on prep rallies,In some cases long boring pointless assemblies some of which take up the hole afternoon, I rarely even went to those and rarely did I ever miss anything important that I needed to ask what I missed.
In canada we have that ridiculous career day everywhere 3-4 months that takes up the hole day and no regular clases either , We make this big portfulio which we likely wont see again or even care to have it back,Sure maybe there is some good info on career planing, But how many of us remeber it by the time we finnish school? Most of us have no idea what we want to do in the future. For me have no clear cut goals and I have no ideas, That makes me depressed so I just concenstrate in the here and now .
Don't worry about what you wanna do for the rest of your life if you don't already have it planned. Just go with the flow and something'll come to you eventually. When it comes time to get a job, you can try something small like a bagger at a grocery store. Of course, that's not something you'd want to do for the rest of your life, but it can earn you money in the meantime.
I haven't missed a day of school in years.
I've skipped class four times this year. But it was only French class, and I don't really care about that.
I'm only out if it's for a fieldtrip (which is automatically an excused absence anyway) or if I'm sick. (Okay, so I do pull the Farris Bueler sometimes.)
Before I say anything, let me say I only had the patience to read about 9 or 10 posts.
Anyway, my stance:
1. This is a Christian founded nation.
2. The ACLU is aka liberals trying to take over the country. (As a matter of fact, I'm gonna make a post about them in here.)
3. If you don't like the phrase "under God" don't say it.
4. If you wanna try to sue or complain to the government, (for any reason but most likely just having something to complain about, or be "cool and rebellious and anti-government like Rag3 a9a1n5t th3 mach1ne!!!, or just wanting to feel sorry for yourself), then I say get the devil out of this country or be shot.
Quote:3. If you don't like the phrase "under God" don't say it.
Yeah, but what all those poor children who have to hear the word "God"? I mean good grief man they could be scared for life and become serial killers because of something so traumatizing!! Someone please think of the children!! And then there's the whole "Christian symbols on city/state seal make people feel
unwelcome" which is the most absurd thing I've ever heard in my life, but the ACLU uses it all the time.
Quote:1. This is a Christian founded nation.
It was and many of the founding fathers were religious, not all but most of them were. One thing that invariably comes up is seperation of church and state. There's nothing in the constitution that says the two MUST be seperate, what it was designed to do was to keep the goverment from establishing a state-recognized church or from making laws that against some churchs in favor of others, not to bar religion from public view.
There are a lot of people who would argue that mentions of God in the way they are frequently made are now (but were not so much in 1792) disriminatory against some religions.
There are a lot of people who do.
They're all still wrong.