Still One Nation, Under God

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: 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.

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: 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.

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.

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.

[promethius9594]

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

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.

[promethius9594]

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.

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.

[Chewbacca]

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.

[Timber Loftis]

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).