Atheist Calls Pledge Unconstitutional

Yahoo! News ^ | 3/24/04 | Gina Holland - AP

[Modernman]

So if this is thrown out because of his not having custody, etc, does that mean the 9th circus ruling is no longer valid and school districts in their territory can go back to saying the pledge?

If the SCOTUS tosses this for lack of standing to sue, all of the lower court decisions are vacated and of no further force.

If it is not thrown out, and ends up a tie, what does that mean to the 9th's ruling?

The 9th Circuit's ruling then remains in force, but only in the 9th Circuit. It does not apply to any other Circuits.

[TheBattman]

I have a question --- quite simple really ----

What part of the Constitution guarantees us the "right" to not be offended?

The reason I ask - this "athiest" is supposedly offended by the word "GOD" in the pledge. Maybe I am offended by this Godless punk's behavior. Maybe I am offended by people who deny God publicly. Maybe I am offended at people who mock Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for even those who are so hate-filled.

So, if the words "Under God" in the pledge are Unconstitutional on grounds of them being "offensive", then this idiot Athiest's actions and whining should also be unconstitutional.

[DustyMoment]

You raise an interesting point. Assume that the SCOTUS upholds the 9th Circuit Court and decides to remove the words from the pledge. Can we Christians then file suit to have it restored on the basis that removing the phrase "under God" is offensive to us?

[E Rocc]

Why is murder illegal, again?

Oh, yeah, now I remember, just had to look at the 10 commandments hanging in SCOTUS.

Interesting...the text of the Commandments does not appear in the courtroom. The "Moses" character in the friezes is holding blank tablets.

Murder was illegal before the Ten Commandments were ever conceived of and its illegal in places where they mean nothing. In India they have many Gods and make graven images, yet murder is illegal.

-Eric

[MrB]

"Derisive laughter" needs to be the only response to these clowns.

[E Rocc]

Is removing "In God We Trust" from our money far behind if the pledge gets changed?

They'd have to remove "Novus Ordo Seclorum" too.

-Eric

[MrB]

Christians were not nearly as tolerant as it is today.

So frickin' what!

When are you living?
And when was the last occurrence of your "evidence" that you can site?

[BlueNgold]

This is the same idiot who recently had another case thrown out that wanted to ban invocations at presidential inaugurations.

[NJ_gent]

I'm actually pretty surprised the Supreme Court hasn't already tossed this case. He might at least have some argument, albeit a weak one, if the pledge were compulsory. As it stands, the Supremes have already said that a compulsory pledge of allegiance cannot, and does not exist. Thus, if he finds the Pledge, in its current form, to be so utterly offensive and "indoctrinating" as to warrant a case reaching the Supreme Court, he may choose to tell his daughter to remain silent while her class recites it. Another option he has is to tell her to recite the Pledge without the words he finds offensive. So long as she's not disruptive to the class (a requirement for all students at all times) during the recitiation of the Pledge, she can't be disciplined in any way.

This clown is nothing more than an attention-starved fool. He's managed to get some people on board, (a few 9th circut nutjobs) but I have a hard time believing the Supreme Court will acquiesce. In the end, this little girl is probably getting picked on by every kid in school. I can just see every insult the parents of the kids in her school using against him being used against her, and then some. Kids can be cruel, but it's often the case that adults make things far worse. As this case resolves itself and fades into the obscurity of forgotten history, there is but one real consequence: a 9-year old girl who becomes known as the kid who tried to ruin the Pledge of Allegiance. Let's all just hope that she's got some good friends around her, and that the parents with kids in her school have the good sense to make sure their children don't punish her for her father's foolishness.

[Bismarck]

I am myself an atheist, but I find this whole situation really ridiculous. The words "Under God" have to remain in the Pledge Of Allegiance . Let us not forget, that the greatness of this country is based on Protestant principles.

[E Rocc]

"If it isn't broken don't fix it." Precisely why the Pledge should have remained as it originally was, without "under God" in it. Precisely why the National Motto, E Pluribus Unum, should have remained as it was, instead of "In God We Trust." The Founding Fathers could have chosen a religious motto, but they chose a secular one instead. They knew what they were doing. The U.S. went through World War I and II and the Great Depression using the Godless Pledge and "E Pluribus Unum" as the National Motto, and what was the harm? What was "broke" then about them that needed to be "fixed?" The Founders also didn't put "God" on their coins, either, and the idea was thought to be blasphemy by some in those days -- even up until Teddy Roosevelt's time, who didn't like the idea either, thinking it cheapened the idea of God.

Bingo. This also supports the idea that the Founders and Framers believed in Separation.

Newdow arguing his own case bothers me. I hope he wasn't too egotistical or too ignorant to challenge the 1954 law changing the Pledge. That law was clearly based upon religious rather than secular concerns. If the Justices take one look at the debate surrounding it, the decision is at least 6-2 and might even be unanimous. At that point the Pledge reverts to the 1940 version.

If he only challenged the school saying the Pledge and not the 1954 law, they can't and won't review the law. At that point all bets are off. They won't want to throw the Pledge out of the schools, even though Congress can easily change it back.

-Eric

[inquest]

This also supports the idea that the Founders and Framers believed in Separation.

Then why the references to God in the Declaration of Independence and in the Articles of Confederation? And why did the first Congress bring in chaplains to cast their benediction over the sessions?

[MEGoody]

Yes, idiots need prayers.

[miloklancy]

All that you say is true and my point is that I don't think the absence or presence of God in the Pledge Of Allegiance, has created strife between the religious and non-religious. However in the last several years, there has been a concentrated and orchestrated effort by atheists on the left to force secularism on the religious. Be it in their schools, their courts, and elswhere. This is wrong and I believe it is dividing people. These secularists do not do this to better society, they do it because they think the law should say that religious people are wrong and they are right.

[ArmstedFragg]

Some supporters of the California father, outnumbered about four-to-one, shouted over the speeches of pledge proponents

Liberal "freedom of speech": shout down those you disagree with.

Well, I guess I shouldn't be too hard on them... it's not like it's part of the same amendment or anything.

[Right_in_Virginia]

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.

I am more than weary of the fashionable tyranny of the minority in this country. I hope the SC is, too.

[E Rocc]

This also supports the idea that the Founders and Framers believed in Separation.

Then why the references to God in the Declaration of Independence and in the Articles of Confederation

Why none in the Constitution?

-Eric

[E Rocc]

Hey reasonseeker. There's no reason we should take 'under God' out of the pledge. Most Americans want it in the pledge.

What secular purpose does it serve being there?

The irony is that when the Pledge is recited in public, nine times out of ten the unanimity of the recitation breaks down when some people say "under God" and the others say "indivisible".

-Eric

[inquest]

So what if they didn't make reference to God at every opportunity. The fact that they did make such references and engaged in such practices is what demonstrated their views on official religious expression.