Atheist Calls Pledge Unconstitutional

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

[mrs tiggywinkle]

**This guy Newdow said he would drop the case if he got custody of his daughter. **

...which he has attempted repeatedly with no success. Thank God.

[E Rocc]

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.

The point is that when they were writing the supreme law of the land, they didn't make such reference at any opportunity, except for the ambiguous matter of the date. Yes, that demonstrated their views.

-Eric

[mrs tiggywinkle]

**Actually, Newdow first filed a suit against the Federal government to have "In God We Trust" removed from our currency, but dropped that case in favor of this one because he thought he could win this one easier - it's for the children after all... **

Further, Newdow made the final decision to move to California because he considered it easier to further his agenda with the 9th circuit than with what is available in Florida.

[inquest]

You'll have to do better than finding something they didn't to in order to demonstrate their views. I've shown you what they did do, even after the Constitution went into effect. So you'd need to point to something they actually said or did that would contradict this.

[breakem]

Let's change "under God" to "under Allah" and then listen to the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[inquest]

Good luck getting the votes on that.

[breakem]

I think we should vote on which God we force kids to recite about. Great stuff!

[inquest]

Who's being forced?

[breakem]

when you tell kids to say the pledge, sit through it or excuse them from the room they are being forced or singled out because they don't believe in the government's or majority's view of God. You remember elementary school don't you?

[Xenalyte]

Might I ask you a question about this whole brouhaha? I promise to keep it civil.

[inquest]

The peer pressures kids face at school are not a political issue. It's not the same thing at all as forcing someone to do anything. One might as well argue that the entire Pledge itself is unconstitutional, since it "forces" kids to say something that they might not be inclined to say.

[breakem]

when you do this during class time and require the kids prescence or make an exception of the kid it is government pressure. Pressure on kids whose parents don't want the government to indoctrinate their children regarding religious concepts.

[inquest]

...or make an exception of the kid...

What exactly does that mean? Either he participates or he doesn't. If he doesn't, he's "making an exception" of himself, and nothing happens to him as a result. If he is treated any differently because of it, then that's something that needs to be dealt with. Otherwise, there's no plausible argument that he's being forced to do anything - beyond self-consciousness, that is. And self-consciousness is something atheists and other religious minorities will have to deal with all their lives in an overwhelmingly Christian country. The fact that they're having to deal with it in a public school setting doesn't change anything.

There are a lot worse types of conformity pressure than that - much of it imposed by the teachers - that kids have to deal with in school, yet no one considers it a constitutional issue.

[breakem]

kids shouldn't have to chose to participate in pledge ceremonies which call upon God in public school. Making an exception is sending the kid out of the room to avoid it or having them sit. It means the kid is not part of the class activity being required by the governmental authority. It means you are imposing a religious belief upon the kid against the wishes of their parent. Why is this such a difficult concept. The only reason it is being done now is the ranting and raving of the majority wanting to kee[ their idea pf God in a school system which is for all children..

[inquest]

Making an exception is sending the kid out of the room to avoid it or having them sit.

What if the kid wanted to stand but remain silent? I've never heard of that not being allowed.

[SendShaqtoIraq]

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

Thanks. I was afraid of that.

[breakem]

Then the kid is not speaking like the rest of the class. The religious beliefs of the kid or the non beliefs should not be exposed for public view because of government sponsored pledges which call upon God.

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.

[inquest]

Again, substitue Allah and all the Christians will agree with me.

What if we substitute Marx? Would the constitutional issue then disappear?

[breakem]

It's not a religious concept unless you can prove it is. I have no objection to a pledge to the country in a government school. If you can force fit Marx into that and get a congressional respolution, have a good time.