Man who sued to stop pledge explains reasons for suit

SF Chronicle via AP ^ | 6/26/02 | STEFANIE FRITH

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow said Wednesday he was trying to restore the Pledge of Allegiance to its pre-1954 version because no one should be forced to worship a religion in which they don't believe.

But if the threatening messages on his answering machine are any indication, the American public is not thanking him.

[rwfromkansas]

Thanks for that. Those were interesting. I have never seen some of those cases before and appreciate you bringing them up.

However, when I look at it, it still does not go as far as what we have today in separation of church and state.

[lavaroise]

With what would you charge him? Is it a state or federal law and what are the penalties for his violation?

Good point. Something must be done, and we all need to think about it. One thing is for sure, one cannot shout fire where there is no fire. And this is exactly what the system of this court and this man have come up to do. Just as German Nazies, officers and small operatives, were responsible by jurisdiction over the death of Jews, these people are responsible for subverting the inalienable jurisdictions of the people of the land which demand that no one institute their own form of worship or restriction of worship, but that all should be respectful of jurisdictions, and what other undefinable supreme jurisdictional emanation is there but under undescribable God? Atheists are defining their gods. Not the under God principle.

[lavaroise]

Goebbles was condemned for shouting fire at the Jews home where there was no fire.

[RichInOC]

lawgirl, I suggested "arrogant, miserable, closed-minded little [Willard]" in #401, but I think "wanker" encapsulates that nicely. Thanks.

[lavaroise]

Atheists are defining their gods. The under God principle is not, atheists' is an above God principle. What makes them so sinless???

[zip]

The pledge is not like the constitution. It does not define the limits of our government; it is a declaration that is recited. Those who choose not to recite it are permitted to abstain. There is no right to "avoid" hearing someone else recite it.

Well stated. It's just a shame someone has to say it. It should be understood already. Thx

[pgkdan]

You tell me how HE has imposed his beliefs on the rest of us. No, it is the judges who have imposed his beliefs on the rest of us.

Is there a point to this silly exercise in semantics or are you just bored?

[BikerNYC]

Both.

It isn't sematics. He hasn't forced his beliefs on anyone by bringing a lawsuit. This guy simply doesn't have the power you credit him with.

But, he does make the easier target, I'll admit that.

[snopercod]

I've never understood the logic of pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth or a particular writing.

Of course you are correct. I should have said "I pledge allegiance to the ideas upon which America was founded".

Only in the sense that the flag is a symbol which represents those ideas, as well as the blood shed by Americans to keep this country free, it is legitimate to pledge allegiance to "a piece of cloth".

And only in sense that the Constitution transformed those wonderful ideas into a workable political system would one hold "the piece of paper" in high regard.

[Revel]

"How do you explain this when 85-95% of Americans say they believe in God? If the remaining 5-15% of us godless people are responsible for this, I have to admit I've really been slacking..."

That number sounds a little high to me. And even if it were true then you should take note of what else I said in my post. People who call them selves Christians don't even know what it means anymore. I would say the number of people who actually practice Christianity is more like 20%. Very few people who say they believe in God take it any further than just a belief. They live a totaly worldly life. And this is a result of of the way God has been cheapened.

[Dimensio]

Actually, I was contesting the assertion of atheists in hell, or rather "former atheists" there. Sorry, I should have been clearer.

[snopercod]

I basically agree with your thoughts.

The solution to this problem is to allow choice in schooling; Let parents teach their children (or hire people to teach their children) whatever they think is best for them.

[E Rocc]

Of course you are correct. I should have said "I pledge allegiance to the ideas upon which America was founded".

Only in the sense that the flag is a symbol which represents those ideas, as well as the blood shed by Americans to keep this country free, it is legitimate to pledge allegiance to "a piece of cloth".

Hence the transitional phrase: "And to the Republic for which it stands". It's a shame that they had to add something divisive to it.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

The American people spoke yesterday and I'm sorry if the minority here doesn't like it, but it's fair to say that THE MAJORITY RULES.

Since when are we a democracy? Indeed, the Founders and Framers meant to put certain principles well out of the reach of whims of the mob.

" The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. "

-The US Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

There are also a few Christian religious sects that forbid their members from taking a oath of allegience to any country or gooberment

The Jehovah's Witnesses are the main one, and they had to go to the Supreme Court to get the right to opt out of the Pledge.

There's also some Christian and Jewish denominations who aren't supposed to speak the name of God.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

Please explain how this view is supported by historical and judicial precedent (no court cases or historical events after 1940 allowed).

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

-James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785.

Where the preamble [of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom] declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the words "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson,from his Autobiography.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

Thanks for that. Those were interesting. I have never seen some of those cases before and appreciate you bringing them up.

However, when I look at it, it still does not go as far as what we have today in separation of church and state.

There are certainly people who have taken it to gross extremes...such as banning any religious act or display on the grounds of a public school. Indeed the Supreme Court has specifically said such are not prohibited by Establishment.

What's prohibited by the Establishment clause is a government agency (including a public school) granting perogatives or privileges to one sect or group of sects that are not granted to others. Only government agencies are covered, individuals or private groups may do what they wish.

Indeed, one of my cases says it well. In Darwin v. Beason, the court said the First Amendment was intended to:

prohibit legislation for the support of any religious tenets, or the modes of worship of any sect.

Some would claim that simple belief in God is not religion. I would disagree. It's debatable. What's less debatable is the idea that the Nation is subordinate to God. That is very much a religious tenet.

When a government agency sponsors the words "One Nation Under God", they are supporting that tenet.

-Eric

[He Rides A White Horse]

.....during an uprising against communism and an attempt to create yet another criteria for demonizing those "godless commies".

..pssst........commies are "Godless", and look at what they do and have done..........say, do ya think that's maybe why all those people were murdered last century? Earth to Dimensio.............come in please.