Skip to comments.
Atheist Calls Pledge Unconstitutional
Yahoo! News ^
| 3/24/04
| Gina Holland - AP
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/
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: antheism; antigod; atheist; childcustody; childcustodycase; freedomfromreligion; freedum; god; howdidhegethere; lawsuitabuse; newdow; onenationindivisible; pledge; religion; religiousintolerance; scotus; separation; unconstitutional; undergod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-123 next last
To: NormsRevenge
"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.
You cannot compare this to civil rights. Civil liberties aren't in violation here. He is an advocate forcing his minority views on the rest of society.
21
posted on
03/24/2004 10:50:55 AM PST
by
writer33
(The U.S. Constitution defines a Conservative)
To: MEGoody
"Michael Newdow. . .
is an idiot."
...needs all of our prayers.
22
posted on
03/24/2004 10:51:07 AM PST
by
Chummy
(Republican Attack Squad HQ: "crooked, lying, you know, an enemy to liberals"(tm))
To: Hodar
And your point is???
23
posted on
03/24/2004 10:52:07 AM PST
by
IAmNotAnAnimal
(This tagline is currently experiencing technical problems, press 1 for...)
To: Hodar
..your point is taken, however it is flawed, unless you intend to portray Mormons as "non-religious."
24
posted on
03/24/2004 10:52:33 AM PST
by
Chummy
(Republican Attack Squad HQ: "crooked, lying, you know, an enemy to liberals"(tm))
To: jtminton
"He's a career trouble maker"
Saw a good program on Court TV last night about Madlyn O'Hare being knocked-off back in '95.
25
posted on
03/24/2004 10:53:13 AM PST
by
Deguello
To: writer33
tryanny of the minority
26
posted on
03/24/2004 10:53:29 AM PST
by
IAmNotAnAnimal
(This tagline is currently experiencing technical problems, press 1 for...)
To: NormsRevenge
Prediction: four to four decision. This whole case is based on a lie, since both the child and the mother(the legal guardian) did not object to the pledge.
The history of the Pledge of Allegiance:
On September 8, 1892 a Boston-based youth magazine "The Youth's Companion" published a 22-word recitation for school children to use during planned activities the following month to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of America. Under the title "The Pledge to the Flag", the composition was the earliest version of what we now know as the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
The October 11, 1892 Columbus Day celebration of the 400th Anniversary of the discovery of America was planned for years in advance, and anticipated much as modern Americans look forward to and plan for the advent of a new century. The United States had recovered from most of the effects of its Civil War that began 30 years earlier, and people from around the world were flocking to the "Land of Opportunity". The previous year almost a half million immigrants had entered the United States through the Barge Office in Battery Park, New York and on New Years day of 1892 the new Federal Bureau of Receiving's station at Ellis Island had opened.
Two men interested in both education and planned Columbus Day celebrations around our Nation's 44 states were Francis Bellamy and James Upham. To this day it is still unknown which of the two men actually authored the words that were to become the Pledge of Allegiance. It was published anonymously and not copyrighted. James Upham was an employee of the Boston publishing firm that produced "The Youth's Companion" in which it first appeared. Francis Bellamy was an educator who served as chairman of the National committee of educators and civic leaders who were planning the Columbus Day activities. What we do know for certain is that the words first appeared in the September 8, 1892 issue of "The Youth's Companion", and a month later more than 12 million school children recited the words for the first time in schools across the nation. Our Pledge of Allegiance was born, but like anything new, it took many years to "reach maturity", and underwent several changes along the way. That first Pledge of Allegiance read:
I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
October 11, 1892
After the Columbus Day celebration the Pledge to the Flag became a popular daily routine in America's public schools, but gained little attention elsewhere for almost 25 years. Finally, on Flag Day - June 14, 1923, the Pledge received major attention from adults who had gathered for the first National Flag Conference in Washington, D.C. Here their Conference agenda took note of the wording in the Pledge. There was concern that, with the number of immigrants now living in the United States, there might be some confusion when the words "My Flag" were recited. To correct this the pledge was altered to read:
I pledge allegiance to my the
Flag of the United States,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
June 14, 1923
The following year the wording was changed again to read:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
June 14, 1924
The Pledge of Allegiance continued to be recited daily by children in schools across America, and gained heightened popularity among adults during the patriotic fervor created by World War II. It still was an "unofficial" pledge until June 22, 1942 when the United States Congress included the Pledge to the Flag in the United States Flag Code (Title 36). This was the first Official sanction given to the words that had been recited each day by children for almost fifty years. One year after receiving this official sanction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite the Pledge as part of their daily routine. In 1945 the Pledge to the Flag received its official title as:
The Pledge of Allegiance
The last change in the Pledge of Allegiance occurred on June 14 (Flag Day), 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words "under God". As he authorized this change he said:
"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
This was the last change made to the Pledge of Allegiance. The 23 words what had been initially penned for a Columbus Day celebration now comprised a Thirty-one profession of loyalty and devotion to not only a flag, but to a way of life....the American ideal. Those words now read:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
June 14, 1954
27
posted on
03/24/2004 10:53:35 AM PST
by
kellynla
(U.S.M.C. 1/5 1st Mar Div. Nam 69&70 Semper Fi http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com)
To: Hodar
You link notes that the Mormons were considered armed and dangerous. Thats hardly a ringing endorsement of your point.
28
posted on
03/24/2004 10:53:53 AM PST
by
Adder
(Can we bring back stoning? Please?)
To: momfirst
I'm curious, do they still have witnesses swear on the bible in court? It's not required. All you have to do is raise your right hand and swear (or affirm) that you'll tell the truth.
29
posted on
03/24/2004 10:54:01 AM PST
by
Modernman
(Chthulu for President! Why Vote for the Lesser Evil?)
To: Hodar
I don't believe Christians in America have ever been a threat to the non-religious.
Then you would be wrong. Christians have a rich history of killing or driving off people who do not believe as they do. Historically, one could go back to the Crusades, but one need not go back that far; even in US history. I offer this link as evidence that Christians were not nearly as tolerant as it is today.
Sadly, that's true.
Simeon Janovsky, former administrator of the Kodiak colony during the early 1800's, wrote the following in one of his letters:
"On another occassion, I was relating to him (St Herman) how the spanish in California had imprisoned 14 Aleuts, and how the Jesuits were forcing all of them to accept the Catholic Faith. "But this Aleut would not agree under any circumstances, saying 'We are Christians.'
"The Jesuits protested, 'That is not true, you are heretics and schismatics. If you do not agree the accept our faith then we will torture all of you.' "Then the Aleuts were place in cells until evening; two to a cell. At night the Jesuits came to the prison with lanterns and lighted candles. They began to persuade the Aleuts in the cell once again to accept the Catholic faith. 'We are Christians,' was the answer of the Aleuts, 'and we will not change our Faith.'
"Then the Jesuits began to torture them, at first the one while his companion was the witness. They cut the toes off his feet, one joint - and then the other...And then they cut the first joint on the fingers of the hands, and then the other joint. Afterwards, they cut off his feet and his hands; the blood flowed. The martyr endured all and steadfastly insisted on one thing: 'I am a Christian!'
"In such suffering he bled to death. The Jesuits promised to torture to death his comrades also on the next day. But that night an order was received from Monterey stating that the imprisoned Aleuts were to be released immediately, and sent there under escort. Therefore, in the morning all were dispatched to Monterey with the exception of the martyred Aleut.
"This was related to me by a witness, the same Aleut who was the companion of the tortured Aleut. Afterwards, he escaped from imprisonment, and I reported this incident to the supreme authorities in St. Petersburg.
"When I finished my story, Father Herman asked, 'And how did they call the Martyred Aleut?'
"I answered, 'Peter, I do not remember his family name,' The Elder stood up before an icon, reverently made the sign of he Cross, and pronounced, 'Holy newly-martyred Peter, pray to God for us!'"
http://www.sthermans.ca/resources/aleut.html
To: IAmNotAnAnimal
SOme people are overeducated to the point where they lose touch with reality and reason.
That has nothing to do with my question.
Thank you Mr. Strawman.
31
posted on
03/24/2004 10:54:17 AM PST
by
newcats
To: newcats
I think people who don't believe there is a God are offensive
Right, that's not fair. I find THIS GUY offensive.
32
posted on
03/24/2004 10:54:51 AM PST
by
anonymous_user
(Proof once and post twice, or is it proof twice and post once?)
To: NormsRevenge
To: NormsRevenge
Teh SC could sidestep it and throw out the case by declaring that Newdow has no standing to bring the suit but this would only waste time and money as I am sure that the ACLU has God and America haters stacked up 100 deep just itching to please Satan and would have a new case filed tomorrow.
34
posted on
03/24/2004 10:56:06 AM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: Hodar
Wrong, your link relates to what I see as an inter-religious dispute. Although many may disagree, I believe the Mormons were a Christian cult that later became a bonifide church. Mormons are by no means non-religious. I have never seen historical accounts in America of the persecution of the non-religious.
35
posted on
03/24/2004 10:56:15 AM PST
by
miloklancy
(The biggest problem with the Democrats is that they are in office.)
To: NormsRevenge
I wonder how this was allowed to come before the US Supreme Court in the manner that it came about? Common sense and decency have all been thrown out of America. It just seems like there were lies and deceit that brought this about. I am appalled. Our Founding Fathers intended that one religion should not rule; not throw out the freedom of religion. I believe that is clear to the majority. Let's hope the Supreme Court Justices who have their very jobs because of our country, warts and all, understand this.
To: anonymous_user
Nice tap dancing there...Spin it baby....
37
posted on
03/24/2004 10:57:42 AM PST
by
newcats
To: IAmNotAnAnimal
Don't you know it. This redundant argument is used when liberals try to degrade something.
38
posted on
03/24/2004 10:58:35 AM PST
by
writer33
(The U.S. Constitution defines a Conservative)
To: NormsRevenge
"That's only because no atheists can be elected to office," Newdow responded. What a whiner, don't think he earned points on that comment.
39
posted on
03/24/2004 10:59:32 AM PST
by
Godzilla
(When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty.)
To: momfirst
I believe there are alternative options for non-religious individuals when taking the oath in a court of law. I'm not sure on the specifics though. I'am disturbed by the forced secularist agenda in our society. If it isn't broken don't fix it. I don't think there was great strife between the religious and non-religious in this country in the past. But I do think this forced secularism stuff will tear people apart.
40
posted on
03/24/2004 11:00:36 AM PST
by
miloklancy
(The biggest problem with the Democrats is that they are in office.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-123 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson