Ruling In - Pledge of allegence

[shortstop]

So the ruling is in.
The Supreme Court sidestepped the religious argument and said that the father had no right to sue in favor of his daughter's right not to say the pledge because he didn't have custody.
So, they didn't really make a ruling addressing the "under God" statement in the Pledge. For now, the Pledge will go on being said as it as been. What do you :fishy think?

[ribbon]

Supreme Court Decides Pledge Case on Technicality

by James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that California atheist Michael Newdow lacked the right to bring a constitutional challenge to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, avoiding a decision on the key church-state issue.

By an eight to zero vote, the justices overturned a controversial decision by a U.S. appeals court in California that reciting the phrase amounted to a violation of church-state separation.

The ruling by the justices was based on the technicality that Newdow could not bring the case before the court because he did not have legal control over his daughter, on whose behalf he was arguing.

The ruling came down on the fiftieth anniversary of the addition of the words "under God" to the pledge. The U.S. Congress adopted the June fourteenth, MCMLIV, law in an effort to distinguish America's religious values and heritage from those of communism, which is atheistic.

Three court members -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas -- disagreed with the ruling that Newdow could not bring the case. They said they would have ruled that the words "under God" do not violate the Constitution.

Newdow, an emergency room doctor who has a law degree and acted as his own attorney in the case, sued because he objected to his daughter's saying the daily ritual at her school in Elk Grove.

The girl's mother, Sandra Banning, a born-again Christian, has custody of the nine-year-old girl on school days, when the pledge is recited, and supports her saying the pledge.

The U.S. Justice Department and the California school district had argued that Newdow lacked legal standing or the right to bring the case.

The Supreme Court's majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, agreed. He said the problem became apparent when Banning filed her motion declaring she has sole legal custody and is authorized to exercise legal control over her daughter.

Millions of American students every day "pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The case generated a political uproar after the appeals court ruling declared the "under God" part unconstitutional.

A California law requires the pledge to be recited every day at public elementary schools, although no child has to join in.

Newdow argued that having school children recite the pledge amounted to coercion, daily indoctrination and a government-imposed religious exercise, almost like a prayer. He wanted the "under God" phrase removed.

Solicitor General Theodore Olson of the Justice Department argued the pledge was not a state-sponsored prayer, not a religious ritual and not the teaching of religious doctrine.

© Reuters MMIV. All Rights Reserved.


While I agree that she father shouldn't be allowed to speak for his daughter on this issue, I do think god should be removed from the pledge, particularly since it is a recent addition and not the way the pledge originally read. Since there is a separation between church and state. I'm an athiest and I don't say the word if I have to say the pledge. I don't have a problem with others saying it, whether in school or not, because this is part of free speech. I just think for governmental things, the word doesn't have a place, because not everyone believes in one supreme being and if they do, they don't all call her/him god.

[ribbon]

:hugonss:baseball:hugoff I didn't see your post and posted mine simultaneously. What are your thoughts?

[MegaVictory]

Well, I personally like the "God" in there. But, I didn't realize that the original pledge did not have it in there. In that case, with all the stuff on separation of church and state, I would say leave it out, too.

[shortstop]

Great minds, eh :ribpink? :winky

Well, I think that there isn't any reason for the "God" to be there. It wasn't in the original and wasn't intended to be in there. There are Americans who don't believe in God, so why is the government forcing them to say that they live in a country under God? Esp when this country was founded for (amongst other issues) religious freedom.
There's really no reason for it and it should be removed for consideration of all those with different religious affiliations, or even those without a religious affiliation.

[kapoker]

:hugon ribbon :hugoff

I'm going to defer to Jon Stewart on this one...
:muhaha :muhaha :muhaha

Rachel

[Amsters]

:balloons jon stewart spoke at my graduation!!! :yay :balloons

okay...side tangent. but he's a great graduate from my college. :happy

I'd actually lean toward removing it...though I'm not sure that the lawyers will win the separation of church/state issue - that clause seems to have so many "yes, but" qualifiers attached to it that I'd be surprised there isn't one for this case. But I personally would say that it should be removed.

it does make for an interesting predicament with money though...wasn't there a ruling on In God We Trust recently? anyone remember this? (or am I making this up?)

[Kensington]

Are we a weaker union if we remove the two words added only a few decades ago? If so, ahem ... God help us! :wacky

Take it out. We are as full of God or as Godless as we're going to get, regardless of those two words. "Godlike" actions, whatever that means to anyone, are way more meaningful than a phrase thrown in to a pledge.

[Marigold]

How 'bout putting in:
"One nation under Goddess"???

(oh boy...I can just see all the :fishy eyes rolling now!)
:muhaha
-Marigold:sun

[Feak]

Lol Mari :muhaha As a Pagan, how about "one Nation, under Gods..." :muhaha

If it wasn't in the original it should be removed, no one should be forsed to say it. But the girl should be able to make her own mind up! People shouldn't have to say it. In the :uk we have no such pledge... are we falling apart?

[ribbon]

Amsters said: :balloons jon stewart spoke at my graduation!!! :yay :balloons


I am so jealous!!!!
:hugonrachel:hugoff :muhaha

[Amsters]

as a side note...I don't believe you can be forced to say the pledge of allegiance. I'm pretty sure that you can abstain from that just like you can from prayer or the singing of the national anthem.

It might be different in schools though...but on a university or national level, you're allowed to sit down.

[shortstop]

I know that in my grade school and high school we stood up every morning and recited the pledge in unison. Every class did it. Now, I am assuming that this is still the norm as I only graduated h.s. five years ago.
Granted, you could just not say that part, but why should it be there? No reason, really.

[MegaVictory]

"One nation, under a Higher Power, indivisable, with liberty and justice for all." :muhaha

[ribbon]

MegaVictory said: "One nation, under a Higher Power, indivisable, with liberty and justice for all." :muhaha

"One nation, either under one or more higher powers or not, indivisable, with liberty and justice for all." :muhaha

[Amsters]

shortstop -

I know that in my grade school and high school we stood up every morning and recited the pledge in unison. Every class did it. Now, I am assuming that this is still the norm as I only graduated h.s. five years ago.

I understand that everybody DOES it. but the thing is that I don't think you have to or are forced to by the school. in other words - I believe that you could by choice not say it and sit down, just like with the "silent prayer time." I know at least three people who sat down whenever the pledge of allegiance was recited in high school....their grounds weren't the "under God" but because they were anarchist...but I believe the general principle holds. :yay

this still doesn't change my vote though.....I'd still want it removed from the pledge, but the remaining seated option does offer a side possibility for people who disagree with it.

[ribbon]

I believe that public schools cannot legally prevent someone from staying seated and/or not reciting the pledge because of the constitution. I also don't think the schools like to publicize this :winky.

[Marigold]

How 'bout:

One Nation Under :love and :peace???

Hey - no one can seriously argue with :love and :peace - can they??? :confused

-Marigold:sun

[ribbon]

Marigold said: How 'bout:

One Nation Under :love and :peace???

Hey - no one can seriously argue with :love and :peace - can they??? :confused


I like that one... it won't happen under this administration because they don't seem to understand the meanomng :muhaha.