Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge

[Benny]

What does everyone think? Personally I am not surprised at all.
----------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

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 (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites) wrote for the court.


"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 (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) 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.


The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites) 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.

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.

[quoth_the_raven]

Theres been discussion recently in relation to the use of the religious nature of the oath given by witnesses prior to giving evidence in court. The consensus of the academics there was that the religious nature of the oath was very much an out-dated concept, of little relevance in modern society. I tend to agree with that, I'm not sure religion holds enough sway in England to force people to tell the truth in the same way it may have done in the 1700 and 1800's.

I just wonder if the same applies to the pledge? Thats not a statement of my opinion on the pledge or the nature of it, I'm just curious. it's more of a question for the American schmoes to answer for me :)

[Grebdron]

It would be easier, and appease everyone save Christians, to remove "god" and anything religious from all of our state sponsored events/pledges.

Just do it, so zealots of all faiths will STFU.

[badberry]

Ugh, whatever...

"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. "

That pretty much sums it up for me. Your kids aren't required to say it, so what's the fuss? It's just tradition. It's like trying to make people say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", which is total BS. I really wonder if political correctness has gone too far...sometimes people just need to lighten up.

[Scarface98.9]

I was surprised it wasn't till 2001/2002 that "Under God" became an issue. When I knew of the seperation between church and state, at a young age, I always wondered why God wasn't removed. It shouldn't stay in it since it doesn't really seem to have a purpose anymore

[SLAW]

The pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist and it wasn't until the Mcarthy era that "under God" was put in. It's absolutely ridiculous and unconstitutional to have a pledge of allegiance in America, much less than to have God in it.

[BubbaStrangelove]

If they keep it in, they need to at least remove mandatory attendance.

It is absurd to require, by law, that your child attend a school, then only provide ones that include religeous messages.

This is why Jeb Bush pisses me off with giving families federally funded vouchers to attend religeous schools. There aren't very many nondenominational private schools out there.

[chilli pepper]

Well, honestly I thought to take the word GOD out of the pledge is just absurd. I mean the kids arent required to say it in most schools hell, in my school all you have to do is stand and if standing is some how 'wrong' or 'agianst your religon' well than...UGH. So yes, i'm glad the word god was not removed from the pledge if it was it would have been a step farther in the extreme-PC direction this country is heading in, and belive you me were are already PC enough.

[SLAW]

Originally posted by chilli pepper
Well, honestly I thought to take the word GOD out of the pledge is just absurd. I mean the kids arent required to say it in most schools hell, in my school all you have to do is stand and if standing is some how 'wrong' or 'agianst your religon' well than...UGH. So yes, i'm glad the word god was not removed from the pledge if it was it would have been a step farther in the extreme-PC direction this country is heading in, and belive you me were are already PC enough.

You can't expect children to fight this battle and get alienated from the other students. Children just want to be liked and accepted by their peers and don't have opinions on things such as this. It's a compromising situation for a parent or school to put children in. If attendance is mandatory, then reciting the pledge itself is oppression.







PS: and what the hell is PC?

[countchocula]

I don't think this has anything to do with political correctness. Schools shouldn't reference any deity of any sort unless it pertains to the curriculum. How in the hell could a reference to God not bear any theological connotations? Argh, it infuriates me that the case was dropped on a technicality. If I were a teacher, I'd start each class by yelping, "Hail Satan!" It wouldn't be a religious declaration, mind you. It would symbolize liberty and individuality. Yeah, that's it.

[badberry]

Originally posted by SLAW

PS: and what the hell is PC?

Politically correct. A term that more and more is annoying the shit out of me.

[Raymond Babbit]

I'm an agnostic, but I actually agree with the court decision. I mean, come on people. Saying God isn't gonna hurt you or anyone else. If you don't wanna say god, don't say it. It's that simple. I had to say "under God" all the time in elementary school, and I turned out fine.

[Lynn Minmei]

Originally posted by badberry
Politically correct. A term that more and more is annoying the shit out of me.

Don't swear when you're debating politics. It's not PC ;)

And I like it in their. I have no problem with it, and the people who do have a problem with it just seem a little too whiney.

Which is ironic, as they're the ones who say that Christians are the whiney ones, yet they're crying.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Once it becomes mandatory to say the pledge, then we'll see about removing the god for it.

Or we can just appease every single person that gets upset by everything.

[SLAW]

Originally posted by Raymond Babbit
I'm an agnostic, but I actually agree with the court decision. I mean, come on people. Saying God isn't gonna hurt you or anyone else. If you don't wanna say god, don't say it. It's that simple. I had to say "under God" all the time in elementary school, and I turned out fine.


You apparently don't even know what the court decision was. And because it didn't affect you, doesn't mean it doesn't affect others.

[JohnTheHenchman]

I'm an atheist, and it doesn't affect me one bit.

I just graduated high school a year ago, no kids give a shit about the pledge.

[flowrchild]

I personally don't think there should be a 'pledge of allegiance' at all. Think about what that means, a pledge of allegiance. That is like giving yourself up to the country and saying every day that you will not betray it. If someone states the pledge every day of their schooling years and then the President does something bad and that person speaks poorly of America, did they break the allegiance to the country? It just seems to be like a bar from free speech or free will. Not only that but it's lining kids up day in and day out to recite something together in unison that they might not even truly believe (and yes, that includes the under god part, although that line doesn't bother me as much as the entire thing as a whole).

I understand it's traditional, but it carries a heavy weight and encourages sheepdom. I see no use for it existing in classrooms.

[JohnTheHenchman]

That's reading too much into it, maybe. To me, it invokes patriotism. Patriotism is not blindly defending a country though. It's loving your country but knowing when it's wrong.

No one ever said it when I was in school so from my experience there was no sheep factor.

[flowrchild]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
No one ever said it when I was in school so from my experience there was no sheep factor.

Just because people don't realize or verbalize that they are sheep, doesn't mean it's not what they are. And I think a lot of what is taught in schools doesn't encourage individual thought or behavior, unfortunately.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Then you should look into private or home schooling in the future.

If a person becomes a sheep it's because they're weakminded to begin with. No one with half a brain lets others do the thinking for them while they just follow suit.

[flowrchild]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
If a person becomes a sheep it's because they're weakminded to begin with. No one with half a brain lets others do the thinking for them while they just follow suit.

I disagree. You are talking about young kids starting from elementary school level, reciting a pledge together in a classroom. It doesn't make someone stupid or weak minded if they don't want to be the only person sitting down quietly while everyone else is saying the pledge of allegiance, possibly subjecting themselves to mockery or belittling from their classmates. Yes people say it's "not mandatory" but people generally don't want to stand out or call attention to themselves in academic situations with their peers. And personally, I don't think things of this nature belong in classrooms.

[JohnTheHenchman]

I'll admit, when I was younger I said it for the exact reason you said...but then I grew up, and thought for my own. By the time I was 14, I didn't say it anymore, because I don't have to prove to anyone that I love my country.

If people want to say it, fine by me, if they don't fine by me. No one's making them say it, so I don't buy into people being conditioned into something that lasts forever.

[SLAW]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
I'll admit, when I was younger I said it for the exact reason you said...

Therefore, it's unconstitutional.

Children are required to be in the classroom and are told to stand up and recite the pledge. I don't think too many teachers say, "you don't have to stand up if you don't want to" to the kids in the oversized classroom. And if they do then there's no point in reciting this pledge in public schools. Reserve it for private schools and the boyscouts.

[Jerk Shapiro]

In my school, we still do the pledge, and no one gives a flying fuck about it. Actually, when everyone turns to the flag, it's kind of fun to see how much stuff you can take from their desk without them noticing. We have people sit down and never say it, and they never got ridiculed.

I could care less, really.

[cstroman]

Children are required to be in the classroom and are told to stand up and recite the pledge. Actually no child is required to attend school. It's the choice of the parents whether to school their children or not and when I was in school it wasn't a requirement, just a loudspeaker came on that said it was time for the pledge and those who wished to participate, did and those who did not, didn't.
I don't think too many teachers say, "you don't have to stand up if you don't want to" to the kids in the oversized classroom. That's a training issue, not a legal one.And if they do then there's no point in reciting this pledge in public schools. Actually it is a daily reminder of what YOU as an American are responsible to your country for. You are pledging your allegiance to the Flag of this country, and not France, Germany or Canada or some other Secular State. You can be a self hating American, etc. But I am all for making the children of people who hate America ( or are racists, etc, but somehow live here :rolleyes: ) to recite this daily in our OFFICIAL schools to teach them to love our country and respect it's laws and each other.
Reserve it for private schools and the boyscouts.
Private schools have other recitations besides the pledge (such as religious ones, or gay ones if you go to a Gay only school) and the boyscouts is an international organization unless you are referring to the BSoA which is the American branch of it so I don't know where you are comming from.

I'm not one of these stupid "revisionists" who deny the history of our country having a very SOLID religious foundation based on a Judeo/Christian view, and I don't think changing traditions that offend the many to NOT offend the few, does anything but breed intollerance, hatred and divide this already divided nation, more.

A line needs to be drawn of HARD LAW and a clear definition of what America is needs to accepted because what it meant to be an American before isn't what it means now, and unfortunately, we have lost our identity in the process.

The country needs to decide what it is going to be and stick with it, and those who do not agree can either stay and count themselves among the rest of us, or leave and go somewhere where their jello basis for their ideologies can find acceptance.

The pledge should stay where it is, the way it is, and those who do not wish to participate, have the "freedom" not to engage in it, but don't infringe on the rights of the many who WANT to say the pledge in school, and CHOOSE to do so.

Otherwise you give grounds for removing the teaching of ANYthing defined as "secular" from school, because it "offends" this person or that.

[SLAW]

Yes, for the six millionth time, of course they are not technically required to stand up, but it mine as well be required if you're talking about kids. Ah well, I've made my stance pretty clear on this issue. I can't believe anybody is for the pledge given its history.

PS: I also didn't realize that Native Americans held Judeo christian beliefs. :confused: Wow. I guess you learn something new everyday.

[cstroman]

PS: I also didn't realize that Native Americans held Judeo christian beliefs. Wow. I guess you learn something new everyday.


You do and will in fact. See I said "the history of our country having a very SOLID religious foundation based on a Judeo/Christian view" which means the United States of America, you know...the "country"?

I wasn't talking about the North American continent or the Indians (Native Americans). You may have just misread that and I forgive you.

I'm talking about the Country of the United States, not the sovereign Native American Countries which as stands are pledging more allegiance to their Casinos than the "Great Spirit" or anything else.

So congrats, you learned something new today!

Who knew this forum could be educational?;)

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by cstroman
You may have just misread that and I forgive you.

Praise Jesus!

He is forgiven.

[cstroman]

Praise Jesus!

Wow, slam that liberal pulpit while you're at it.

You are the equivalent of Jerry Falwell, but on the opposite end.

[badberry]

Originally posted by cstroman

I'm not one of these stupid "revisionists" who deny the history of our country having a very SOLID religious foundation based on a Judeo/Christian view, and I don't think changing traditions that offend the many to NOT offend the few, does anything but breed intollerance, hatred and divide this already divided nation, more.

A line needs to be drawn of HARD LAW and a clear definition of what America is needs to accepted because what it meant to be an American before isn't what it means now, and unfortunately, we have lost our identity in the process.

The country needs to decide what it is going to be and stick with it, and those who do not agree can either stay and count themselves among the rest of us, or leave and go somewhere where their jello basis for their ideologies can find acceptance.

The pledge should stay where it is, the way it is, and those who do not wish to participate, have the "freedom" not to engage in it, but don't infringe on the rights of the many who WANT to say the pledge in school, and CHOOSE to do so.


Yes. Ain't it odd that people who come over to our countries (I'm referring to Canada and the USA both) want to preserve their culture and history so badly over here, and at the same time want us to get rid of ours? Being multicultural is one thing, and I certainly support that....if you want to come here and make a better life for yourself, feel free, and also feel free to practice whatever customs or religions you want. But people shouldn't expect native citizens to change THEIR ways of doing things to accomodate them.

I'm an agnostic myself and I don't feel any allegiance to God or any religious beliefs. But I certainly realize that these countries DO have a Christian history and that the Canadian anthem's lyrics read "God keep our land" and American money reads "In God we Trust" for a reason. And I see no reason to change it. Like cstroman said, it's about national identity, not religion.

And like I said before, I will continue to say "Merry Christmas" to every one I talk to in December....none of this PC "Happy Holidays" crap for me :)

[BubbaStrangelove]

To paraphrase Lewis Black -- it's an abstract concept. Who gives a fuck where it's mentioned?

Another fact to point out -- The controversy over the "God" in there was started by the same group that was originally trying to get the entire thing banned. They brought up the God "issue" as proof of that the entire pledge was unconstitutional.

[DRbeauty]

I wonder if this girl's father celebrated Christmas

[Tom Samborski]

I think this is a crucial misstep. I fully support the separation of church and state, mainly because God (if he truly exists) had nothing to do with politics. People like George.W.Bush have used their faith in God for justifying America's positions - all for the wrong reasons.

[Ultrahumanite]

"ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state. "

IF I were you, I would wonder WHY this person wanted to "sidestep" the issue of separation of church and state.

Anyway, here's some info about the case that I found was not widely reported :

"Michael Newdow... made an attempt to deliberately mislead the court by stating that his ‘daughter’ was offended by having to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and saying the words, "Under God." He misled the court into believing that he was an active, caring father, making a legal decision for his daughter.

What he did not disclose was that his daughter never lived with him, he never had custody of her, and that he and the child’s mother were never married. He seduced Sandra Banning, impregnated her, then stated to Sacramento Superior Court Judge James Mize that Ms. Banning had raped him. To further examine Mr. Newdow’s character, he also stated to the judge that, "I don’t love her, and I told her that."

He then used the child he fathered, "as a hook", to file this infamous Pledge Case, as he himself stated on CNN. He did not have custody of the child he fathered, never did have the custody of that child, and he had no legal right to make decisions for her since the mother had sole custody. Newdow had no standing to even make his case by suing in the name of his ‘daughter.’ He never asked the little girl or her mother for permission to do so. And they have stated they would never have given it.

Furthermore, the child and her mother both are born again Christians, are members and active in a church, and the child has no problem whatsoever in saying the Pledge and the phrase, "under God," contrary to Newdow’s statements.

Indeed, the child begged Newdow not to bring her name into the case since it would look like she was an atheist... Newdow is now fighting to gain custody of the little girl he fathered, using her, thinking this will give validity and standing to his bringing the Pledge case in her name. "

[DRbeauty]

what a shmuck

[SLAW]

Originally posted by cstroman
I'm talking about the Country of the United States, not the sovereign Native American Countries which as stands are pledging more allegiance to their Casinos than the "Great Spirit" or anything else.

So congrats, you learned something new today!

Who knew this forum could be educational?;)

That's pretty biggoted. Damm, I'm happy you can't post here anymore. :D

Anywho, I think a poll should be taken on whether there should be a pledge of allegiance in America.

[Neesh]

In the Next World Order, no one will be obligated to say anything.

[TheDeadWalk]

If all this tweaking needs to be enforced by the government to remove 'God' from schools and such, then I agree with the Christian majority. Start revoking the American government and its employees of being able to take off for all Christian holidays.

Work on Easter, Christmas, and deliver my mail on Sundays bitch.

[electriclite]

I used to attend catholic school when I was little and I had to recite the Rosary every day after lunch. Imagine my relief when I went to public school and I had to say was the pledge.

I don't mind this ruling because it preserves people's right to choose. You have a choice whether or not to say that part of the pledge or say it at all. I'm not for just taking the option away.

Sure the little kids will say it in the beginning, but much like my Rosary recitation after lunch, they'll say the words but after a while they'll JUST be saying them not reflecting on them. Eventually when they reach middle school most will just be standing by their desks.