Atheist Calls Pledge Unconstitutional

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

[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/

[Modernman]

I wonder how this was allowed to come before the US Supreme Court in the manner that it came about?

Blame the 9th Circuit for this mess. I wonder how many SCOTUS Justices voted to grant cert. Probably most, if not all. If they didn't grant cert, there would have been a major split between the 9th Circuit and the other Circuits.

[society-by-contract]

Below is a link to an interesting website which deals with the socialist roots of the Pledge:

http://members.ij.net/rex/pledge1.html

[IAmNotAnAnimal]

I wasn't replying to any question, just felt like committing an Ad Hominem attack (there really is irony here if you look deep)

[CA Conservative]

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

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...

I work for the Elk Grove school district, and this is a very conservative area for California. No one here wants him to win. (BTW, Newdow does not live in Elk Grove, he lives in Sacramento - his daughter and her mother live here).

[beelzepug]

"You mean this is just a child custody pissing contest??"

(1) Newdow likes having his mug on TV. It's good for his practice.
(2) He is using this as a way to get back at his ex-wife.
(3) It's a way of compensating for having a small penis.

[Polyxene]

Isn't extortion illegal, too?

[Hodar]

You link notes that the Mormons were considered armed and dangerous. Thats hardly a ringing endorsement of your point.

You are correct, the Mormons were armed; but more dangerous to rabbits, squirrels and deer than to the general population. Despite having an extermination order placed upon them, being forced at gun-point to leave their homes; the Mormons were then called upon to fight in the Civil war against the Confederacy (which they did).

The Mormons fled to Utah, where they were able to celebrate the 1st Admendment, but historically speaking, not without other outside 'Christian' harassment.

My point is that Christians cannot say "But we have never bothered them", as that statement is false, and patently untrue. Christians have a rich history of forcing others to their will. Now, the shoe is being placed upon the other foot (and again, historically speaking) once again.

Is the athiest correct in his approach? IMHO, no.

[Doctor Stochastic]

A bit more on Conservative Hero Francis Bellamy. (Francis was Ralph's brother.)

[anonymous_user]

Nice reply. Chat with yourself.

[momfirst]

I work for the Elk Grove school district, and this is a very conservative area for California. No one here wants him to win.

That's good to know. Sometimes the minority screams so loud it drowns out the majority, skewing the whole scene. Let me re-phrase that, MOST times....

[Adder]

I agree with your main point but it is a function of power rather than the religion: Christians certainly have their share of demerits, as it were.
But it is becoming more inconceivable that the sensibilities of the minority...a very small minority...dictate the activities of the entire nation.

[Congressman Billybob]

"In God we Trust" would have to be removed from oour money. Also, the fourth stanza of "The Star-Spangled Banner" would also have to be ouotlawed, since the first statement of the National Motto appears there. Also, the Clerk of the Supreme Court would have to stop reciting, "God save this Honorable Court and the United States of America" before their sessions. Etc., etc., etc.

I argued all these obvious points in my brief to the Supreme Court in this case. Even with Justice Scalia off the case, I believe that even this Court will throw out the Ninth Circuit decision concerning the Pledge of Allegiance.

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Please do it now.

[reasonseeker]

"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.

[SendShaqtoIraq]

""That's only because no atheists can be elected to office," Newdow responded.


Some in the audience erupted in applause in the courtroom,"

The courtroom is just full of idiots today, isn't it? Supreme Court Justices AREN'T elected. Although it might be time to change that.

[DustyMoment]

There is no legal basis for the SC to hear this case. Newdow comes into court with "dirty hands" having originally filed his case based on fraud and the attempt to influence the people of the U.S. via perjury.

In Newdow's original filing in California, he claimed that his daughter complained to him that she had to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school everyday and was offended by the phrase "under God" in the Pledge. Subsequent investigation revealed that Newdow is a non-custodial parent whose daughter lives with her mother in another state and attends a religious school in addition to attending church regularly. This is prima facia evidence that Newdow filed his case on the basis of fraud and perjury. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in CA that heard the case ruled in Newdow's favor but should have dismissed the entire case and filed charges against him for perjury and fraud.

Instead, this case is given new life with a Supreme Court hearing that it does not deserve. Nothing that subsequent courts have done eradicate the fact that Newdow's original filing was predicated on fraud and perjury, leaving him with, what in legal terms are called, "dirty hands". "Dirty hands" is a legal term that describes a plaintive who attempts to have a court codify an illegal agreement (such as requiring a drug dealer to sell a full rock of cocaine, for example).

Since Newdow is a practicing atheist, it is clear that he is the one offended by the phrase "under God", NOT his daughter as his original suit contends. The case is unworthy of SCOTUS attention.

[Old Sarge]

Heh, Heh, Heh....

(3) It's a way of compensating for having a small penis.

Small compensation "package", eh?

[judgeandjury]

"It's indoctrinating children," he said. "The government is supposed to stay out of religion."

This is a mischaracterization of what the U.S. Constitution says in regard to religion. The U.S. Constitution does not say that the government is supposed to stay out of religion in every conceivable way.

[A Jovial Cad]

Puh-Leeze. Your "link" as "evidence" is, well, not much. It is not even historically accurate; try picking up a real history book sometime instead of posting links to propaganda sites. It reeks of absurdity employed as an argument.
The entire post--with it's silly talk about Christians "killing" or "driving off" people--is Demo Armpit/Underground-type thinking, and more appropriate to that intellectual fever-swamp forum. And as far as a "rich history" in the "killing" business goes, the atheists of the world, from Joseph Stalin to Adolf Hitler, pretty much have that market cornered in history.
I'm sure there must be a library in your area, and it is probably well-stocked with many fine books. I urge you to visit it sometime, and read some genuine history before you post bilge.

[SendShaqtoIraq]

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

[judgeandjury]

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.

It looks like Newdow is comparing apples and bulldozers.