Posted on 03/24/2004 10:33:48 AM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON -
A California atheist told the Supreme Court Wednesday that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional and offensive to people who don't believe there is a God.
Michael Newdow, 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, 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 (news - web sites), 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.
___
On the Net:
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites): http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/
That's a religious concept and it doesn't belong in a class-time recital of a pledge. That's my position. I understand we disagree and I know I'm in the minority. I just believe I'm right. Again, substitue Allah and all the Christians will agree with me."Allah" is Arabic for "God". Any Muslim can recite the Pledge as it exists with a clear conscience. They truly believe that the nation is indeed subordinate to God.
The principle that there is one Deity is a religious principle. The idea that the nation is subordinate to that Deity is even more of one. It simply does not belong in a statement meant to affirm one's allegiance to a nation that affirms, as one of it's founding principles, complete freedom of relgious conscience.
-Eric
What difference does it make whether it's a religious concept? If the children are being "forced" to say something against their consciences then it's unconstitutional, right?
It doesn't serve a secular purpose, obviously. It serves a religious one - which, given that the US is one of the most religious countries in the world, is what most Americans want. The US Consitution does not require a secular state - only that an official religion not be established, AND that the free exercise of religion not be prohibited. This is part of the free exercise part, E Rocc. You may not like it, but so what? There are lots of things our government does that each person doesn't like.Thanks for being honest about what the purpose of this bill was.
However, such honesty presented before the US Supreme Court would not be rewarded. The right of free exercise is a right granted to individuals, not government. When governmental entities express religious preference as a matter of policy or practice, it is considered Establishment.
The Supreme Court established clear guidelines in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) as to when the Establishment clause is being violated. To meet the Clause, a law:
-must have a secular legislative purpose
-its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.
-the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
As you pointed out, the 1954 law does not have a secular purpose. Equally obviously, its intent is to advance religion. Therefore, it fails a basic test that the Court has consistently applied over the last thirty years.
There's little if any chance that the Court will overturn Lemon, especially since the same Court voted 6-3 to forbid the elections for the "official" prayer before public school extracurricular activities in Santa Fe ISD v. Doe (1999). I believe Scalia knew this before he made the comments that caused him to disqualify himself.
-Eric
I believe many here would change their opinion if the word Allah was substituted.I am 100% positive you are correct. My point was that it means the exact same thing.
-Eric
I was discussing religious freedom and the government's roll. If a kid doesn't want to salute the flag then don't do it. That's different than acknowledging God because the government wants you to pledge and do so. To use government force or coercion to recite a pledge including God seems a violation of the first on religious grounds.Force doesn't matter. The Court has consistently ruled that even "voluntary" prayers in public schools constitute Establishment.
-Eric
What about polytheistic Americans ? I'm not an atheist but I'm not sure whether there is one creator or many . Whilst i think that the pledge is a very minor issue this idea that somebody is either a (Jewish/Christian/Islamic etc)monotheist or an atheist is absurd. Whats wrong with simply saying "may America be blessed" leaving who ( or who doesn't) do the blessing up to the individual.It's a little better but I'd say that a patriotic affirmation should be as all-inclusive as possible, especially when referring to the nation as "indivisible". The pre-1954 version does exactly that.
-Eric
Atheism is Unconstitutional !
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.
Atheism
\A"the*ism\, n. [Cf. F. ath['e]isme. See Atheist.] 1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
Atheism is a ferocious system, that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us to awaken tenderness. --R. Hall.
Atheism and pantheism are often wrongly confounded. --Shipley.
2. Godlessness.
Atheism
n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
To use government force or coercion to recite any pledge is clearly a violation of freedom of speech. So the only question is whether force is involved. If it is, then the entire pledge has to go.
God is Dead -Nietzsche
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.