Today's NY Times:
_____________________________________
June 14, 2004
Supreme Court Case on Pledge Is Dismissed on Technicality
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court at least temporarily preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath while sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.

The decision leaves untouched the practice in which millions of schoolchildren around the country begin the day by reciting the pledge.

The court said the atheist could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.

The father, Michael Newdow, is in a protracted custody fight with the girl's mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, eight members of the court said. Justice Antonin Scalia did not participate in the case.

"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the outcome of the case, but still wrote separately to say that the Pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas agreed with him.

The high court's lengthy opinion overturns a ruling two years ago that the teacher-led pledge was unconstitutional in public schools. That appeals court decision set off a national uproar and would have stripped the reference to God from the version of the pledge said by about 9.6 million schoolchildren in California and other western states.

The case involved Newdow's grade school daughter, who like most elementary school children, hears the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily.

The First Amendment guarantees that government will not "establish" religion, wording that has come to mean a general ban on overt government sponsorship of religion in public schools and elsewhere.

The Supreme Court has already said that schoolchildren cannot be required to recite the oath that begins, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America."

The court has also repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the language of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's precedents make clear that tax-supported schools cannot lend their imprimatur to a declaration of fealty of "one nation under God."

The Bush administration, the girl's school and Newdow all asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the case.

The administration had asked the high court to rule against Newdow, either on the legal question of his ability to sue or on the constitutional issue. The administration argued that the reference to God in the pledge is more about ceremony and history than about religion.

The reference is an "official acknowledgment of our nation's religious heritage," similar to the "In God We Trust" stamped on coins and bills, Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued to the court.

It is far-fetched to say such references pose a real danger of imposing state-sponsored religion, Olson said.

Newdow claims a judge recently gave him joint custody of the girl, whose name is not part of the legal papers filed with the Supreme Court.

The child's mother, Sandra Banning, told the court she has no objection to the pledge. The full extent of the problems with the case was not apparent until she filed papers at the high court, Stevens wrote Monday.

Newdow holds medical and legal degrees, and says he is an ordained minister. He argued his own case at the court in March.

The case began when Newdow sued Congress, President Bush and others to eliminate the words "under God." He asked for no damages.

The phrase "under God" was not part of the original pledge adopted by Congress as a patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress inserted the phrase more than a decade later, in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold.

Supporters of the new wording said it would set the United States apart from godless communism.

The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624.

Another of these frustrating nuisances that clog up the court system. I wouldn't have thought he had a prayer (pardon the pun ;) ). As I was reading through the thread I thought the admin would be on a winner when it discused the ceremony v religion argument. When you pointed out though that the inclusion of the godly reference was as recent as the cold war then that kinda dilutes the admins argument because ceremony should be supported by decades nay centuries of embracement.

As much as I support the atheist's right to not believe, the establishment just seems to be on a total loser always giving grounds to minorities that pick about the edges with whatever than can dredge up fault with. I wish they would set standards for frivolous cases, and start throwing them out and penalising the guys and gals that pursue them.

Good. It's a stupid argument against anyway. Arrogant in fact. Arrogant in the assumption that every person reciting the pledge has the Western concept of who and what God is while they recite it.

Is God "everything in existence" as per pantheist Hindus/Buddhists etc, a human concept as per Atheism/Humanism or an omnipresent personality as per monotheistic Christianity/Judaism/Islam?

Why should Atheism become the state worldview? Isn't that what happens if you remove any and every mention of the metaphysical? Enforce and legislate atheism?

Hmm, hmm, hmmmm.... My faith dictates that one must follow one's own moral compass first and foremost, valuing good over what the establishment or government might say. Therefore, I have decided that pledging allegiance to a country, leaving no room for interpretation or "I will follow my country as long as I agree with it" infringes on my religion and desire to have it stricken fron the nation.
My lawyer said he'd call me back a week ago, so look for me in the papers any day now.

DISCLAIMER: The above post was tongue in cheek. I, personally, think it's a foolish argument and I, personally, refrain from reciting the Pledge for my own reasons. I also think that, if we're really living in a democracy, they should just put the question on the ballot this November and let the people decide for themselves whether or not they want "under God" in the pledge at all.

Fair call.

Mind you I came from a country that didn't recite anything in schools... oh one school I went to as a kid had a creed that got said once a week.

One school out of nine. ;)

A ballot referendum amounts to simple majority rule -- and that's not our system here. Our system in fact has a "check" against simple majority rule, it's called the constitution.

So, when majority rule prefers "under God," that's all well and good so long as it does not offend the constitution. In particular, the phrase that the government shall "respect no establishment of religion" as found in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

I agree with Davros on one important point here -- it means a lot to me that the phrase was only inserted post-WWII to separate us from the pinko commies. If the phrase was traceable back to our venerable founding fathers, I would consider it more, well... venerable.

<font color=deepskyblue>While the idea that our nation was founded on Christian Principles may be debatable, the influence of Christianity on our heritage cannot be denied. God has always been an important influence on American culture - especially during the early years of our formation.

While the Constitution provides checks and balances to protect the minority view from being overrun, the "democratic majority rule" is also a fundamental part of our heritage. If the majority of the people want the phrase "Under God" left in the Pledge - then the gov't is NOT "establishing a religion", it is honoring the wishes of the majority of the population. As long as the pledge isn't made mandatory, the argument that the state or gov't is "establishing a state religion" is invalid.

Yes, I understand that non-Christians may be ostracized by their peers for not saying the pledge - but this is true of anybody that chooses NOT to follow the majority on ANY issue you bring up.</font>

WOOHOO - a point of agreement between Davros and TL - see there buddy, it does happen from time to time - things are lookin up [img]smile.gif[/img] .

Ok, then let's throw the phrase out.

See what happens? There's absolutely no right answer to this argument...

I disagree, not mentioning God does not make anything atheistic but since a higher power have putted a ban on religious discussions, we unfortunately can't discuss this further.

(Just wanted to have the last word. [img]tongue.gif[/img] )

Hey, Cerek, let's really trace back that Christian influence and see how important it is.

How many of our founding fathers were non-Christian? Anyone? Bueller?

When did "In God We Trust" get put on the money? In the courtroom? Anyone? Bueller?

And Yorick can make his argument that "God" can mean Buddha, Shiva, Athena, Uranus, Demeter, Loki, Cthulu, Horus, or whatever, but no, "God" tends to mean the Christian/Jewish "God" otherwise known as "Jahweh" or "I am." We all know that, and any pretense otherwise is reverse-engineering the saying so it does not offend rather than reading the phrase as it was meant.

Not that I care. I'm fine with the slogans and the "God" this and "God" that. It bothers me, an atheist, not a bit. I think society *needs* religion, whether or not I subscribe to it, so I really don't mind. I'm just pointing out the flaws in any argument that there's some sort of rhyme or reason to the whole structure. There ain't -- it's all fiat of a majority at a given time. Now, we think it's venerable, or "traditional," but it ain't -- it's just older than us.

[ 06-15-2004, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

<font color=deepskyblue>That is precisely why I stated that the assertion of our country being "founded" on Christian principles was debatable. Before the subject was taboo, there were many threads claiming that most of our founding fathers were deists rather than Christians - and some claimed they were actually atheists.

Documentation of statements would then be offered as evidence to substantiate the claim, only to be followed by other statements by the same founding father that would indicate they were, indeed, a Christian.

Since nobody here knew any of them personally, I submit that the personal theologies of the founding fathers (and how much that theology or lack thereof influenced their actions and decisions) will always be debatable.</font>

I disagree, not mentioning God does not make anything atheistic but since a higher power have putted a ban on religious discussions, we unfortunately can't discuss this further.

(Just wanted to have the last word. [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) </font>[/QUOTE]Banning people from mentioning their God, and legislating to ensure people cannot make reference to their faith or God is legislating atheism.

Well, if their religious proclivity is debateable at best, then the most we can do is give meaning to their words. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Congress passed a law putting the phrase "under God" into the pledge of allegience to the Republic. Seems pretty cut and dried that Congress did what it was not allowed to do.

Sure -- mention your God all you want. You are free to stand on street corners shouting hallelujah far and wide, just as the Naked Cowboy is free to sing songs in his underoos. But, when you put your God in OUR pledge of allegience you have gone from proclaiming what you want to making me proclaim what you want me to. A big big difference.

Very American response. However, if the phrase was inserted to distinguish from the "Godless" communists, then all those are applicable. Russia and China legislated against Buddhism (The Dalai Lama still suffers as a result of this) Falun Gong, Christianity, Taoism, Islam... the lot.

The fact is, the concepts of who or what God is, vary drastically. "One nation under God" can mean very different things to whomever is saying the phrase - if they even say those lines. If the writers meant "Jesus" they could have written "Jesus". If they meant "Yhwh" they could have written "Yhwh". A Muslim would have no problem uttering that statement. "Allah" is the Arabic for "God". Nor a Hindu. "God" is Brahman. Everything. Nor a Jew. Nor a Taosit. The only worldview that possibly takes umbrage is Atheism So the Atheist will enforce their worldview on every other religion or worldview. Nice one.

Cencorship gets another kick in the nuts! [img]smile.gif[/img]

"We all know that..." was the American response. No we don't all know that Timber. Tsk tsk. ;)

But this however is awesome. You're the man Timber. Very openminded and mature viewpoint.

<font color=deepskyblue>While the idea that our nation was founded on Christian Principles may be debatable, the influence of Christianity on our heritage cannot be denied. God has always been an important influence on American culture - especially during the early years of our formation.

While the Constitution provides checks and balances to protect the minority view from being overrun, the "democratic majority rule" is also a fundamental part of our heritage. If the majority of the people want the phrase "Under God" left in the Pledge - then the gov't is NOT "establishing a religion", it is honoring the wishes of the majority of the population. As long as the pledge isn't made mandatory, the argument that the state or gov't is "establishing a state religion" is invalid.

Yes, I understand that non-Christians may be ostracized by their peers for not saying the pledge - but this is true of anybody that chooses NOT to follow the majority on ANY issue you bring up.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Well said. It's like trying to remove the flag from govt buildings because it's offensive to a minority.

That's not establishing a religion Timber. How is it? It's not decreeing you have to believe it. It's a statement about the nation. The majority believe in God, and so are unified in a theistic/deistic belief. If and when atheists are a majority, the statement will cease to be true. As it is, it is a true statement about America, without declaring what your religion should be.

For comparison, see Indonesia, with a state religion - Islam. See even England. The Queen is the head of the Anglican Church - which is thus the state religion. Laughable of course, given the views of most English, yet nevertheless, a nation without church and state seperation enshrined in it's constitution - without all the whoohar either. "God save the Queen" is the anthem for starters.

[quote]Originally posted by Yorick:

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: [qb] "God save the Queen" is the anthem for starters.

An intresting fact about God save the Queen...
There is a second verse which only seven people in the world know the words to. It does however contain the lines 'god damn their knavish tricks/confound their politics'. Really true. Sounds like a joke but it's not.
It seems appropriate to call on an entity who may or may not exist to save an institution which will probably not exist in 100 years time.

As for the US pledge of alliegence, Americans are not obliged to recite it, so who cares if it is under God?
I personally would like to swear a pledge of alliegence to 'one nation under the thumb of one nation under God' but that probably isn't going to happen.

I like your disclaimer [img]smile.gif[/img] I'll say the pledge with "under God" no matter what the courts say now or in the future. Though I have to agree with TL the majority rules is a dangerous slope to go down. We must have our laws apply to all.

I like your disclaimer [img]smile.gif[/img] I'll say the pledge with "under God" no matter what the courts say now or in the future. Though I have to agree with TL the majority rules is a dangerous slope to go down. We must have our laws apply to all. </font>[/QUOTE]In general, I don't trust the public to make a choice like that. It was a moment of frustration on my part... I want the issue to go *away*

I don't say the pledge. It's a personal choice. You do, and you say "under God." That's a personal choice too, and I respect that. This is something that should be a personal choice for everyone, in my opinion. If there are people who are for some reason forced to recite the pledge, it's not right that they should be forced to say "under God" if they don't believe it to be true. But I would imagine such cases are rare.

I thought it was a personal reference. Last I checked it wasn't "God save the monarchy", but "God save the monarch". Seems appropriate to wish the old dear well if you ask me. Why would you wish her ill? Hear hear. God save Lizzy. ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img]

We all should know that. By "we all know that" what I meant was: "We all know that when the U.S. Congress inserted the phrase 'under God' into the pledge of allegience, it was referring to the Judeo-Christian God and not some broader 'god'."

And, that, I believe is just seeing the facts as they are. It's not a particularly "American" response.

Britain doesn't have a constitution.
Never has done and never seen the need to have one.

Britain doesn't have a constitution.
Never has done and never seen the need to have one. </font>[/QUOTE]Read what I wrote again:

<font color=yellow>a nation without church and state seperation enshrined in it's constitution</font>

The key word being WITHOUT.

In any case, though unwritten Britain still has an "uncodified constitution". Built upon the Magna Carta and act of settlement.

But that is beside the point. The point was, there is no seperation of church and state in Britain. The national Church, the Anglican Church was started by a monarch, and is still headed by the monarch. Politics all around.

This seems like a giant defeat for parental rights to me.


Anyway, I predict we will be seeing round two in the not too distant future, a case brought by a nice 'nuclear' atheist family.

A defeat for parents rights? How so?

This case has alway been about the father and not the daughter. She's been nothing more than his vehicle.

It won't take a nuclear family, just a single parent with custody.

I am opposed to nuclear families and all other families of WMD.

And, I think Bman is right -- I doubt the little girl came home crying everyday because of the Pledge of Allegience.

Really? The father or the mother? The mother was against the father, as was the daughter. The daughter was a pawn in the fathers political agenda. His idea that she was saying he was wrong every time she took the pledge is ludicrous.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
According to the Father (the guy bring the law suit) He is not the custodial parent of the daughter, the daughter never complained about the pledge and he is in fact making the case on the theoretical grounds that his daughter may in some way at some point in time be offended by the phrase Under God. His daughter and the daughters mother (The custodial parent) were interviewed and it turns out they attend church most weeks. The little girl said she didn't mind.


This guy is making the claim that as one of her gaurdians that he has to protect her rights for her.....or so that was the story over a year ago when it first became news. All this stuff was on ABC News Radio, commented on both The Hannity and Limbaugh Radio Shows and the ABC Nightly news on television.</font>

well, since alot of this seems to focus on what date the first reference to God occured in our nation, i would like to ask if anyone knows when the words "annuit coeptus" first appeared on our $1 dollar bills

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Some time long after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...our currency system didn't settle down till well into the 1800's...but I don't remember the dates off the top of my head.</font>

okay, heres the scoop, the great seal of the united states didnt immediately appear on the currency, however, a search yielded:

The Great Seal was finalized and approved six years later on June 20, 1782. The seal reflects the beliefs and values that the Founding Fathers wanted to pass on to their descendents.

the seal is what contains the words "annuit coeptus" which translates to roughly "He has granted us many blessings." i would think that this is a pretty strong arguement that religiosity has LONG been a part of our culture to a degree that most people dont even realize.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Yes, Promethius, however writings by Thomas Jefferson and others, seem to make it clear that they were not trying to emphasize the Judeo Christian God, but a broader definition of God that would be open to all men of faith. However how that later got perverted as being seen to extend to Athiests being able to abolish the notion of God from our courts and Governmental facilities...I will never know.</font>

Non-custodial parents have generally had the right to have a say in the philosophical/religious upbringing of their children. To rule that Newdow didnt have standing because he was not the custodial parent at the time sets a dangerous precendent and is why I think it may be a defeat for parental rights.

I'd feel that way if he had joint custody. I will note that non-custodial fathers have never had many rights under the law whatsoever. There is a bias (1) for the custodial parent and (2) for the mother in our law, especially "in practice" (i.e. what is not written in the books but really goes on in the courtroom).