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] )