|
Supreme Court Takes Up 'Under God'
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
AP
WASHINGTON - A California atheist told the Supreme Court Wednesday that the
words "under God" (search) in the Pledge of Allegiance (search ) are
unconstitutional and offensive to people who don't believe there is a God.
Michael Newdow (search ), who challenged the Pledge of Allegiance on behalf of
his daughter, said the court has no choice but to keep it out of public schools.
"It's indoctrinating children," he said. "The government is supposed to stay out
of religion."
But some justices said they were not sure if the words were intended to unite
the country, or express religion.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist noted that Congress unanimously added the
words "under God" in the pledge in 1954.
"That doesn't sound divisive," he said.
"That's only because no atheists can be elected to office," Newdow responded.
Some in the audience erupted in applause in the courtroom, and were threatened
with expulsion by the chief justice.
The subject of Newdow's right to bring the lawsuit had dominated the beginning
of arguments in the landmark case to decide if the classroom salute in public
schools violates the Constitution's ban on government-established religion.
Terence Cassidy, attorney for a suburban Sacramento school district where
Newdow's 9-year-old daughter attends classes, noted to justices that the girl's
mother opposed the lawsuit. "The ultimate decision-making authority is with the
mother," he said.
The mother, Sandra Banning (search ), is a born-again Christian and supporter of
the pledge. "I object to his inclusion of our daughter" in the case, she said
earlier Wednesday on ABC's "Good Morning America" show. She said she worries
that her daughter will be "the child who is remembered as the little girl who
changed the Pledge of Allegiance."
Newdow had sued the school and won, setting up the landmark appeal before a
court that has repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms,
playing fields and school ceremonies. But justices could dodge the issue
altogether if they decide that Newdow needed the mother's consent, because she
has primary custody.
Rehnquist said that the issues raised in the case "certainly have nothing to do
with domestic relations." And, Justice David H. Souter said that Newdow could
argue that his interest in his child "is enough to give him personal standing."
Solicitor General Theodore Olson, the Bush administration lawyer arguing for the
school district, said that the mother was concerned that her daughter had been
"thrust into the vortex of this constitutional case."
He said the Pledge of Allegiance should be upheld as a "ceremonial, patriotic
exercise."
A new poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly support the reference to God.
Almost nine in 10 people said the reference to God belongs in the pledge despite
constitutional questions about the separation of church and state, according to
an Associated Press poll.
Dozens of people camped outside the court on a cold night, bundled in layers and
blankets, to be among the first in line to hear the historic case. "I just
wanted to have a story to tell my grandkids," said Aron Wolgel, a junior from
American University.
More than 100 supporters of the pledge began the day reciting the pledge and
emphasizing the words "under God." Some supporters of the California father,
outnumbered about four-to-one, shouted over the speeches of pledge proponents.
They carried signs with slogans like "Democracy Not Theocracy."
God was not part of the original pledge written in 1892. Congress inserted it in
1954, after lobbying by religious leaders during the Cold War. Since then, it
has become a familiar part of life for a generation of students.
Newdow compared the controversy to the issue of segregation in schools, which
the Supreme Court took up 50 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education.
"Aren't we a better nation because we got rid of that stuff?" Newdow, a
50-year-old lawyer and doctor arguing his own case at the court, asked before
the argument.
The AP poll, conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs, found college graduates were
more likely than those who did not have a college degree to say the phrase
"under God" should be removed. Democrats and independents were more likely than
Republicans to think the phrase should be taken out.
Justices could dodge the issue altogether. They have been urged to throw out the
case, without a ruling on the constitutional issue, because of questions about
whether Newdow had custody when he filed the suit and needed the mother's
consent.
Absent from the case is one of the court's most conservative members, Justice
Antonin Scalia, who bowed out after he criticized the ruling in Newdow's favor
during a religious rally last year. Newdow had requested his recusal.
The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624.
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
| |
| |
In talk.atheism "=> Vox Populi " <vox@popu.li> wrote:
:Supreme Court Takes Up 'Under God'
The "under god" part is slightly offensive to me, but not nearly as
offensive as the general practice of making the pledge itself
mandatory for kids to recite in a ceremony. Even if you removed
the "under god" phrase, there's still the big problem that the
pledge is a patriotic oath, and therefore it should ONLY be used
voluntarily. To require students to recite it is an attempt at
mandatory patriotism. Patriotism, while it might be an admirable
quality when given willingly, becomes horribly tyrranical when it
becomes compulsory.
My love of my country dies when my country makes that love compulsory.
|
| |
| |
madings@bmrb.wisc-antispam.edu wrote:
In talk.atheism "=> Vox Populi " <vox@popu.li> wrote:
:Supreme Court Takes Up 'Under God'
The "under god" part is slightly offensive to me, but not nearly as
offensive as the general practice of making the pledge itself
mandatory for kids to recite in a ceremony. Even if you removed
the "under god" phrase, there's still the big problem that the
pledge is a patriotic oath, and therefore it should ONLY be used
voluntarily. To require students to recite it is an attempt at
mandatory patriotism. Patriotism, while it might be an admirable
quality when given willingly, becomes horribly tyrranical when it
becomes compulsory.
My love of my country dies when my country makes that love compulsory.
Recitation of the Pledge is optional. *Legally* optional, that is.
Socially, there have been many problems where children who refuse to say
the Pledge are taunted and ostracized by their peers and even by teachers
and school administrators.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
|
| |
| |
Gregory Gadow wrote:
madings@bmrb.wisc-antispam.edu wrote:
Recitation of the Pledge is optional. *Legally* optional, that is.
Socially, there have been many problems where children who refuse to
say the Pledge are taunted and ostracized by their peers and even by
teachers and school administrators.
Yeah, as it is optional to stand for the National Anthem during
an NFL/NHL/NBA stadium game ... go ahead an remain seated
and see what the crowd of knuckle-dragging Neanderthals around
you do ...
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 21:57:01 +0000 (UTC),
madings@bmrb.wisc-antispam.edu wrote:
In talk.atheism "=> Vox Populi " <vox@popu.li> wrote:
:Supreme Court Takes Up 'Under God'
The "under god" part is slightly offensive to me, but not nearly as
offensive as the general practice of making the pledge itself
mandatory for kids to recite in a ceremony. Even if you removed
the "under god" phrase, there's still the big problem that the
pledge is a patriotic oath, and therefore it should ONLY be used
voluntarily. To require students to recite it is an attempt at
mandatory patriotism. Patriotism, while it might be an admirable
quality when given willingly, becomes horribly tyrranical when it
becomes compulsory.
It's a bit more than that, though. In the McCarthy era the law was
changes to establish monotheism. Not just with the pledge, but by
changing the national motto from the inclusive "E pluribus unum" to
"in God we trust". Both of which have been used to "prove" that this
is a de facto Christian nation.
And that's the problem.
I think most of us could live with it as a minor inconvenience if the
Christian extremists didn't try to enforce their religion.
My love of my country dies when my country makes that love compulsory.
I
|
| |
| |
"=> Vox Populi ?" <vox@popu.li> wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Yeah, as it is optional to stand for the National Anthem during
an NFL/NHL/NBA stadium game ... go ahead an remain seated
and see what the crowd of knuckle-dragging Neanderthals around
you do ...
Absolutely nothing.
|
| |
| |
"=> Vox Populi ?" <vox@popu.li> wrote:
Absolutely nothing.
don't count on it, shorty
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:40:52 -0700, "Joshua" <Joshua@Jericho.net>
wrote:
don't count on it, shorty
|
| |
| |
|
