[lotusdebi]

Supreme Court Preserves God in Pledge by ruling that Newdow didn't have the authority to sue on behalf of his daughter.
IMO, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had it right.

Quote:

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 to ``one nation under God.''

 

[librarymom]

Just want to add that I am very disappointed by this ducking of the issue, even if it's true (he can't sue on behalf of his daughter). I was so looking forward to a decision. Harumph!!!

 

[lotusdebi]

I agree. I really think they wimped out.

Well, if my son ever has to go to public school, and the Pledge is still done, I'll sue about it.

When I was in school, I refused to not only say the Pledge, but to stand for it as well. I considered it a free speech issue as well as a separation of church and state issue (not to mention brainwashing). From Elementary School on, I was picked on for this choice, as well as for being an atheist. In High School, I was threatened with suspension and expulsion if I didn't stand for the Pledge. My history teacher gave me permssion to come to class after the Pledge was done, so that I didn't get in trouble with the administration. I consider the Pledge to be a problem, and I will fight to have it changed, if not completely removed from public schools.

 

[TiredX2]

That just pisses me off.

If there is something *wrong* you should not have to have full custody of a child to help correct the situation. I mean, what if a local school was encouraging cults--- would only full custodial parents get a say?

 

[JessicaS]

This was the last thing I was expecting to hear. I was expecting some sort of decision, not lolly gagging....

I wonder how much this case just cost us...

 

[Dragonfly]

I'll be the lone voice of dissent here. :LOL

The reversal on grounds of lack of standing makes sense to me. And, to be honest, I'm a bit relieved. I'm not convinced that this particular Court would have affirmed the Ninth Circuit's decision even if they did get to the substance of the case. I'd hate to have them reverse on substantive grounds. I'm relieved that the door is still open for someone with solid standing to challenge and not have to break through the barrier of established precedent.

I've only read the summary and the very beginning of the opinion, though, so I'm reserving the right to change my mind sometime next week when I actually have the time to get through the whole thing.

 

[lotusdebi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonfly I'll be the lone voice of dissent here. :LOL The reversal on grounds of lack of standing makes sense to me. And, to be honest, I'm a bit relieved. I'm not convinced that this particular Court would have affirmed the Ninth Circuit's decision even if they did get to the substance of the case. I'd hate to have them reverse on substantive grounds. I'm relieved that the door is still open for someone with solid standing to challenge and not have to break through the barrier of established precedent.

Good point, Dragonfly.

The whole thing is just so frustrating to me.

I'd love for the Supreme Court to be made up of justices who stick to the Constitution while deliberating, rather than their religious beliefs.
I guess that's just too much to ask...

 

[goodcents]

I am coupling with you - I will be a voice of dissent to.

While I would like to see them address the issue but having the grounds to sue is an important component of our judicial process.

If this father does not have grounds, than of course moving forward would set a precedent for having a new standing. That would in and of itself lead to probelms, especially considering we are a "sue happy" country.

 

[TiredX2]

Quote:

While I would like to see them address the issue but having the grounds to sue is an important component of our judicial process.

I guess I have just lost a lot of faith in the court. Sure, we all know politicians were corrupt, but until recently (2000 anyone?) I could at least believe that the court system (while often unfair and biased) was, at its heart, just. Legally, the specific charges they ruled on in Bush/Gore could *not* be brought by Gore--- but they ruled on it for partisan reasons. I wish that in this case they could have overlooked full/partial/etc (btw, the father has custody 10 days a month) custody (a concept the founding fathers would have had no idea of) and addressed the moral, legal, JUDICIAL issue at stake.

I am disgusted by the way the courts have shifted from their responsibility of enforcing laws to making laws.

 

[maatmama]

Funny, I am discussing this article and issue today in class with my 7th graders. Some of them are stauch defenders of their parents beliefs (that should make some parents happy), some after much discussion of the history of the pledge, why we say it (13 years/180 times a year), the symbolism and the meaning of the hand over the heart, were torn over what to think or believe (I like to get them thinking). Part of their assignment (yes on june 15th I am STILL giving homework) was to discuss the issue with their family and return to school tomorrow with a quote from someone in their family they can use along with info from the articles to write a few paragraphs on their position......oh yeah they will also write an "alternative" pledge or give sound reasons for no pledge at all.......what do you guys think?????? (of the assignment)

 

[JessicaS]

That sounds like a fun assignment.

 

[Kam]

Wow, Maatmama, now that's what I call education! You sound like a great teacher, encouraging them to form their own opinions and back them up, while not forgetting where they come from!

I was another high schooler who refused to stand for the flag, even at the beginning of games when I was a varsity cheerleader. (cheerleader...uggh, I know

: ) My parents were a little ashamed of my behavior back then, but now they proudly sit as well.

I wonder if all the conjecturing about this case will encourage another party with better grounds regarding custody to sue.

warmly,
Kam, mamamama! to Meg

 

[Rainbow]

I find it hard to believe there aren't other parents out there suing to- where have all teh atheists gone?
I think if he even has partial custody he should ahve grounds- because that means he is partially responsible for raising his daughter.
I just don't get how the pledge and other godly things are even involved in our schools and our state to begin with.

 

[Kinipela79]

I'm going to sound really stupid here - but I can't even remember all of the pledge. So is it just the under God part that makes people upset? Or the whole thing? Wow - maybe I need to watch the news more!

 

[lotusdebi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kinipela79 I'm going to sound really stupid here - but I can't even remember all of the pledge. So is it just the under God part that makes people upset? Or the whole thing? Wow - maybe I need to watch the news more!

I consider the "Under God" part to be a violation of the Separation of Church and State (Freedom of Religion).
I consider the whole thing to be a method of brainwashing.
I consider the way that children are forced to stand, if not say, the Pledge to be a violation of Freedom of Speech.

I originally refused to stand for it because of the "Under God" part. By high school, I added the other reasons to my protest.

 

[Kinipela79]

What is brainwashing about it? (not arguing!! Simply asking

)

 

[Cranberry]

When the pledge was originally written, the words under God were not in it.

Quote:

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

link to pledge history

(I found this pledge history online. Don't know how accurate it is.)

 

[TiredX2]

Here's the original (1892):

Quote:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all.

Here's the current (since 1954 to fight the godless commies):

Quote:

I 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.

Here's the page I found the info on

:

http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofhe...fc_pledge.html

Some people are offended by pledging *anything* to a symbol (and not of G-d at that). (the entire "no idols" problem). Others do not like the addition of "G-d" which was to symbolize that G-d WAS on the side of the US. Obviously, those would be two different camps as to religous beliefs, generally, but even as a Chrisitian I felt it was wrong.

 

[TiredX2]

Quote:

A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'

I like the intent, but IMO if all individuals had liberty and justice *equality* would be redundant.

 

[Kinipela79]

Thanks for all the info!