Under God to stay in the plegde At least for now

Status
Not open for further replies.
Frisky Feline

Frisky Feline

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
26,316
Reaction score
94
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/06/14/national1028EDT0527.DTL

06-14) 10:58 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

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.

"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.

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. He said he would continue the fight because "the pledge is still unconstitutional."

At a Sacramento, Calif., news conference, Elk Grove Unified School District Superintendent Dave Gordon called the pledge "a unifying, patriotic exercise that reflects the historical ideals upon which this great country was founded."

He said he'd have preferred that the Supreme Court had decided the merits of the case "and settled it once and for all for our nation."

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 the court "ducked this constitutional issue today," and that 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.
Click to expand...

What do you think?
 
It should be the pledge they originally recognized in 1942, instead of the altered one they used starting in 1954.
 
Yeah, it's starting to make us focus on our own religion. We look at other countries and criticize their religion. Yet, we have our own religion included in politics. That's not exactly a wise thing to do. :nono:
 
VamPyroX said:
Yeah, it's starting to make us focus on our own religion. We look at other countries and criticize their religion. Yet, we have our own religion included in politics. That's not exactly a wise thing to do. :nono:
Click to expand...


True...

but do you honestly think the word "under God" should be stayed in the pledge or it has to go?

That's what I want to see about you guys..
 
I know that I am very happy that they've decided to keep "under God" in the pledge! It has always been a part of our country's history, and it should not be changed.
 
whitedove said:
I know that I am very happy that they've decided to keep "under God" in the pledge! It has always been a part of our country's history, and it should not be changed.
Click to expand...

Glad you mentioned it.. thats your opinion which is fine by me.

Did you know that the "under God" wasn't orginially word in the pledge. Under God just added later in 1942 but recognized it in 1954.
 
whitedove said:
I know that I am very happy that they've decided to keep "under God" in the pledge! It has always been a part of our country's history, and it should not be changed.
Click to expand...

No, it was added to the pledge in 1954.
 
Oh I didn't know that...hmmm. I still think it should stay in the pledge...I have always loved that part. :)
 
Frisky Feline said:
True...

but do you honestly think the word "under God" should be stayed in the pledge or it has to go?

That's what I want to see about you guys..
Click to expand...
Actually, I don't care if it stays or leaves. I just wish people would shut up. We've got enough problems these days with religion. Heck, I could even sue RIT for having religious flyers around campus! But, I'm not gonna do that cuz I'm not some anal prick who wants to sue the pants off of everyone! ;)
 
SUPREME COURT DUCKS CONTROVERSY OVER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Issue Sure To Resurface At High Court, Says Americans United

Today's Supreme Court decision dismissing on technical grounds a legal challenge to the use of "under God" in public school recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance is disappointing, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

California physician Michael Newdow brought the suit on behalf of his daughter, a public school student. But Newdow has only partial custody of the girl, and the court today ruled he has does not have the right to sue on her behalf.

"I am disappointed with the court's action," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "Students should not feel compelled by school officials to subscribe to a particular religious belief in order to show love of country. America is increasingly diverse in matters of religion, and our public schools should reflect that diversity."

Lynn said the Pledge case raised important issues that the court should have addressed head-on. He added that he believes the issue will resurface in the federal courts.

"The justices ducked this constitutional issue today, but it is certain to come back in the future," Lynn said.

During oral arguments in March, Newdow, who was never married to his daughter's mother, was pressed by the justices on the issue of his right to sue on the girl's behalf. The lawyers for the Elk Grove Unified School District, which included the U.S. Solicitor General, noted that Newdow does not have primary custody of his daughter and that his daughter and her mother, both Christians, do not object to "under God" in the Pledge.

"Students who are outside the Judeo-Christian tradition should not be pressured by their teachers to put aside their beliefs in order to show love of country," Lynn said. "The compelling issues raised by this case won't disappear because of today's action by the Supreme Court."

Americans United filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge violates church-state separation. AU attorneys asserted that government, through the public school system, should not compel students to recite a patriotic oath with religious content.

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
 
I think "Under God" Should Stay.. :)
 
Some people makes such a big deal out of the Pledge of Allegiance Song.....' Under God ' should remain the same, and I wouldn't want to see it change at all.... :mrgreen:
 
^Angel^ said:
Some people makes such a big deal out of the Pledge of Allegiance Song.....' Under God ' should remain the same, and I wouldn't want to see it change at all.... :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Yeah I understand but you know under god was added in the pledge in 1954. why not back to old one?
 
Frisky Feline,

I was born in 1970, and this is the only song I ever known, and I do not want to see any changes in this....I remember when I was only 6 years old , I first sang the Pledge of Allegiance under God song in sign language on the news with my classmates......I have loved that song ever since I first sang it until I started teaching my son's classroom the signs for the Pledge Of Allegiance to sang in front of the School Board of Education.....I could never forget the words in that song! Never will.....
 
^Angel^ said:
Frisky Feline,

I was born in 1970, and this is the only song I ever known, and I do not want to see any changes in this....I remember when I was only 6 years old , I first sang the Pledge of Allegiance under God song in sign language on the news with my classmates......I have loved that song ever since I first sang it until I started teaching my son's classroom the signs for the Pledge Of Allegiance to sang in front of the School Board of Education.....I could never forget the words in that song! Never will.....
Click to expand...

I was born in 1970 as well. For some reason, I was uncomfortable to say under god. I dont know why even I am catholic myself. I find it so ironically that plegde is for national but combined with religious and national. I feel uneasy about it. I feel that the word "under god" needs to be removed. thats all

You know Allah, Jehovahs witness, Goddess, whoever they worship their own god, are not supposed to say Pledge becaseu its against their religious.
 
Last edited:
"One Nation under God" is about the freedom that God gave us...and not to take it away from us, if it should involve in diversity. That's IMO! ;)

I want it to remain for many years since it first established "heritage". It's not necessary to change. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top