Can't sue over God in pledge

brneyedgrl80

Member
May 25, 2004
558
5
16
Phoenix-it's-dry-heat-Arizona
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0614ScotusPledge14-ON.html

Associated Press
Jun. 14, 2004 08:00 AM


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.
 
Just thought I would post a little something I wrote up a while back and tried to get put into a newspaper (yeah right):

What is incredible about the United States of America is that it is the only nation on Earth which was established on the basis of religious freedom. Our forefathers fought and died for the right to worship as they pleased, and now, after their sacrifice, we have an environment today in which every man is on equal grounds, regardless of his religious beliefs. This is in stark contrast with many nations around the world and throughout history, where devotion to God was required by the state in a certain form. Those who chose not to conform to the laws were persecuted, tried, convicted, and even killed. I have great respect for those great men and women who were willing to lay down their lives for their convictions.

The idea of religious freedom is just that – freedom…for ALL. This means freedom for all mankind, male and female, black and white, young and old, believing and unbelieving. In my faith, there is a scripture which outlines this principle very well, and I will quote it:

“Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.”

In the constitution of the United States of America, there is no law or policy against the religious beliefs of any person. If anyone chooses not to worship God, that is their choice, and nobody can judge him/her for that. Is not this very thing beautiful – that all mankind can live together in harmony, regardless of forms of worship?

However, I would like to take a step back to our roots. The Founding Fathers established our nation upon the principle of religious freedom, but one cannot overlook that they also established the nation in piety. The constitution was based on the fact that God does indeed exist and was the source of strength for the establishment of our nation. For that very reason, our motto continues, “In God we trust.” It is interesting how former-president Dwight D. Eisenhower explained it, upon approving the addition of the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance:

“In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war"
(quoted in http://www.usflag.org/pledgeofallegiance.html).

I am a very patriotic man, who loves to celebrate the freedom which we all enjoy. As such, I hold a very strong opinion that all who live within the borders of the great United States of America ought to support that very country, or else suffer the title of traitor. It pains me when I see people in my very community harshly criticizing and even evil-speaking of the nation which I love. If I weren’t the nice guy that I am, I would have spoken out in many instances, “If you don’t support my country, move out! How dare you take advantage of all the benefits and privileges which this nation affords, only to turn around and show no gratitude, only wanting more!” Well did John F. Kennedy say, “My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country”
(quoted in http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/jb/modern/frost_1).

On the same token of being a patriotic man, I am also pained greatly as everything on which this nation was founded is twisted and turned. Do you think it was the will of the Founding Fathers that the future citizens of America downplay and even forget everything for which such great sacrifices were made? I think not.

I say “twisted and turned” because that is exactly what I see in this further segregation of God from the state. The Founding Fathers were themselves religious men, and based the foundation of this nation on the fact that God had provided them with the freedom they sought. They did not establish the United States of America as a Christian nation, nor as a Buddhist or Hindu nation. The interesting thing to note, however, is that neither did they establish it as an Atheist nation. It was created as a pious and religious nation, with full measure to allow all to worship or not to worship as they pleased. To say that the religious devotion of our forefathers inhibits our own true freedom of worship is utterly ridiculous. To me, it is important that we look at our roots, and honor this nation for what it is. We cannot destroy the vision which the Founding Fathers held so dear.

Now, some may believe that, for example, in the case of the Pledge of Allegiance, the line, “One nation under God” professes an inequality between believers and unbelievers. As I said before, this nation was created as a religious nation, not an atheist nation. Also, as I said before, there is no law or policy in this nation which opposes the belief of any man. The Pledge of Allegiance states, “One nation under God” because the nation was established under such a faith, and as citizens of such, we are to respect that. However, there is no obligation to believe in any God. Likewise, there is no obligation to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

The United States of America were built around the idea of worshiping God, but the government was created with allowance for those who did not believe to co-exist with the believers in equality. To further segregate God from state would be to destroy that very basis upon which this nation was formed, and turn it from a religious nation to an atheist nation – something that the Founding Fathers NEVER envisioned.

-Douglas
 
douglas/shazbot, you should read "Persecution" by David Limbaugh. He talks about America's Christian roots in great detail. Very interesting read.
 
As far as i'm concerned (and we've had the same issue in Canada), pledges or writs in fundamental doctrines are not, in my opinion, advocating religion, but acknowledging our past.

Revisionist history is abhorrent. Religion was a motivating factor in the creation of both of our nations. Whether or not it's a main issue in today's government (which I don't think it should at all), is besides the point. The point is, is that it is a part of history.
 
The SCOTUS decision sidestepped the real issue. They DID NOT rule that "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegience" was constitutional, rather they ruled the Michael Newdow had no legal standing to file the suit. This was NOT an affirmation of Under God in the pledge, please understand that. This issue will ultimately be decided by the SCOTUS. Personally, I believe "Under God" has absolutely no place in the Pledge. When I recite the pledge, I leave those words out as I do not want to lie when taking an oath.

acludem
 
Originally posted by acludem
The SCOTUS decision sidestepped the real issue. They DID NOT rule that "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegience" was constitutional, rather they ruled the Michael Newdow had no legal standing to file the suit. This was NOT an affirmation of Under God in the pledge, please understand that. This issue will ultimately be decided by the SCOTUS. Personally, I believe "Under God" has absolutely no place in the Pledge. When I recite the pledge, I leave those words out as I do not want to lie when taking an oath.

acludem

How is it a lie? God lives and this One nation under God despite your disbelief in him.

All religious points aside. This is the exact reason we need to reelect President Bush. Supreme Court Nominations will be coming up soon. Do we want someone who will interpret the Constitution as it was written. Or do we want John Kerry, the most liberal Senator alive, to appoint judges who will rule in favor of men who will use their children to overturn the peoples will?
 
It's a lie because I do not believe we are "One Nation Under God". There are many in this nation who don't believe in God, and many more who don't believe in the Judeo-Christian "God" as used in the current pledge.

It was freedom from government sponsored and enforced religious dogma that led the migration of many of the early English settlers to the east coast.

We need to elect John Kerry. It's time to end the religious right's trampling of the Constitution so that they may force their personal moral and religious codes on the entirety of American society. America is not and should not be a theocracy. George Bush's right-wing sponsors and allies like John Ashcroft, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell would make Protestant Christianity the official state religion if they could. They would persecute those who do not conform.

acludem
 
Originally posted by acludem
It's a lie because I do not believe we are "One Nation Under God". There are many in this nation who don't believe in God, and many more who don't believe in the Judeo-Christian "God" as used in the current pledge.

It was freedom from government sponsored and enforced religious dogma that led the migration of many of the early English settlers to the east coast.

We need to elect John Kerry. It's time to end the religious right's trampling of the Constitution so that they may force their personal moral and religious codes on the entirety of American society. America is not and should not be a theocracy. George Bush's right-wing sponsors and allies like John Ashcroft, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell would make Protestant Christianity the official state religion if they could. They would persecute those who do not conform.

acludem

Seriously, did you have a problem with the god part of speeches of Lincoln, IKE, FDR, etc?

I'm all for the establishment clause, but it's going a bit far as you have acknowledged now and again.
 
Most presidents who have mentioned God in speeches have not then attempted to use their office to force certain religious beliefs on the populace (Eisenhower did so by adding "Under God" to the pledge and "In God We Trust" to paper money so he is left out of this category).

The current President has allied himself with a group of people dedicated to establishing a fundamentalist Protestant theocracy in the United States.

acludem
 
Originally posted by acludem
It's a lie because I do not believe we are "One Nation Under God". There are many in this nation who don't believe in God, and many more who don't believe in the Judeo-Christian "God" as used in the current pledge.
Under God does not imply a Judeo-Christian God to me. God comes in many flavors to many people. Where is this Judeo Christian implication that you added in?
It was freedom from government sponsored and enforced religious dogma that led the migration of many of the early English settlers to the east coast.

We need to elect John Kerry. It's time to end the religious right's trampling of the Constitution so that they may force their personal moral and religious codes on the entirety of American society. America is not and should not be a theocracy. George Bush's right-wing sponsors and allies like John Ashcroft, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell would make Protestant Christianity the official state religion if they could. They would persecute those who do not conform.

acludem

BS and scare tactics.

"They would persecute those who do not conform."

Obviously your opinion and you're entitled to it, but don't you think that's a stretch? You're making an incredible leap here.
 
Originally posted by acludem
When I recite the pledge, I leave those words out as I do not want to lie when taking an oath.
Acludem, you'll have to excuse me, as my question is just about completely off subject :)... There is something that I have thought about a lot, but never have gotten around to asking anyone. I am assuming from this and other comments that you don't believe in a God. I consequently assume that you don't believe in an afterlife or judgement by that God. So, my question is...if this is true, what's it to you to say a lie? I look at my own moral founding, and see that it is all based on my faith. If I had no faith and did not believe in God or His judgement (aka, no consequence for my actions), I would say, "screw laws and morality, I'm gonna have fun." Don't take this offensively or anything. It's just kind of a weird thought I've had that I want to ask. :)

-Douglas
 
Originally posted by acludem
It's a lie because I do not believe we are "One Nation Under God". There are many in this nation who don't believe in God, and many more who don't believe in the Judeo-Christian "God" as used in the current pledge.

It was freedom from government sponsored and enforced religious dogma that led the migration of many of the early English settlers to the east coast.

We need to elect John Kerry. It's time to end the religious right's trampling of the Constitution so that they may force their personal moral and religious codes on the entirety of American society. America is not and should not be a theocracy. George Bush's right-wing sponsors and allies like John Ashcroft, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell would make Protestant Christianity the official state religion if they could. They would persecute those who do not conform.

acludem

The right doesnt force morality on people. we simply teach it and the people govern themselves.

If the majority of the people decide to end abortion. we can end abortion. if we want to protect marriage we can protect marriage. thats the whole point of Democracy, to let the people rule.

What would be so bad about a nation were honesty is encouraged? where we are taught to love one another? to be civil? To be compassionate? To remain chaste outside marriage? To be sober and keep our bodies clean from impurities?

We may have respect to those who disagree with us, but why on earth should the majority of people be ruled over by the few who disagree with them?
 
Originally posted by Shazbot
Acludem, you'll have to excuse me, as my question is just about completely off subject :)... There is something that I have thought about a lot, but never have gotten around to asking anyone. I am assuming from this and other comments that you don't believe in a God. I consequently assume that you don't believe in an afterlife or judgement by that God. So, my question is...if this is true, what's it to you to say a lie? I look at my own moral founding, and see that it is all based on my faith. If I had no faith and did not believe in God or His judgement (aka, no consequence for my actions), I would say, "screw laws and morality, I'm gonna have fun." Don't take this offensively or anything. It's just kind of a weird thought I've had that I want to ask. :)

-Douglas

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I figured I could give you my insight... if you're interested.

Now here is a disclaimer: I'm just answering Shazbot's question, that's it.

Okay, I consider myself a weak atheist (also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods - no more, no less or in luck, superstitions, karma, fate. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.
). I still have morals and ethics to what I believe is right or wrong. I think most people, with a proper upbringing with or without religion, will know the difference between right or wrong. I can make a decision without knowing what God condones and still be doing right. I personally do feel bad if I lie depending on the situation. If I'm at work and tell a lie to my boss to cover my butt, I don't feel bad. But if I told a lie concerning an outfit my friend had on, I would feel bad about it.

On a side note, there are also man made laws that are there to enforce what society feels is right or wrong as well. I know personally, I feel really guilty if I do not signal which way I am turning when I drive and it's illegal not to. Is that law really enforced? Not really, though I'm sure a cop, if he wanted to, could nail you on it.

So religion, at least for me, is not a huge determining factor as to whether or not something is right or wrong to do. I was lucky enough to grow up in a household that instilled the difference between right and wrong in me.

Here is somehting that may explain it better than I did:
But aren't atheists less moral than religious people?"

That depends. If you define morality as obedience to God, then of course atheists are less moral as they don't obey any God. But usually when one talks of morality, one talks of what is acceptable ("right") and unacceptable ("wrong") behavior within society.

Humans are social animals, and to be maximally successful they must co-operate with each other. This is a good enough reason to discourage most atheists from "anti-social" or "immoral" behavior, purely for the purposes of self-preservation.

Many atheists behave in a "moral" or "compassionate" way simply because they feel a natural tendency to empathize with other humans. So why do they care what happens to others? They don't know, they simply are that way.

Naturally, there are some people who behave "immorally" and try to use atheism to justify their actions. However, there are equally many people who behave "immorally" and then try to use religious beliefs to justify their actions. For example:

"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners... But for that very reason, I was shown mercy so that in me... Jesus Christ might display His unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever."

The above quote is from a statement made to the court on February 17th 1992 by Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious cannibal serial killer of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It seems that for every atheist mass-murderer, there is a religious mass-murderer. But what of more trivial morality?

A survey conducted by the Roper Organization found that behavior deteriorated after "born again" experiences. While only 4% of respondents said they had driven intoxicated before being "born again," 12% had done so after conversion. Similarly, 5% had used illegal drugs before conversion, 9% after. Two percent admitted to engaging in illicit sex before salvation; 5% after. ["Freethought Today", September 1991, p. 12.]

So it seems that at best, religion does not have a monopoly on moral behavior.

Of course, a great many people are converted to (and from) Christianity during adolescence and their early twenties. This is also the time at which people begin to drink and become sexually active. It could be that the above figures merely indicate that Christianity has no effect on moral behavior, or insufficient effect to result in an overall fall in immoral behavior.

"Is there such a thing as atheist morality?"

If you mean "Is there such a thing as morality for atheists?", then the answer is yes, as explained above. Many atheists have ideas about morality which are at least as strong as those held by religious people.

If you mean "Does atheism have a characteristic moral code?", then the answer is no. Atheism by itself does not imply anything much about how a person will behave. Most atheists follow many of the same "moral rules" as theists, but for different reasons. Atheists view morality as something created by humans, according to the way humans feel the world 'ought' to work, rather than seeing it as a set of rules decreed by a supernatural being.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

Here's another link on atheist morality:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-morality.html

I'm not sure how much that answered. But at least it's something! :D
 
I am a Soka Gakkai Buddhist so I do not believe in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim concept of "God" or "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" or "Allah" no. I believe in reincarnation.

Somehow I think you would have a problem saying "One Nation, Under Buddha, with liberty and justice for all." Do you now understand why I might have a problem saying "One Nation, Under God"? Clearly, I would not be part of this nation if it is one "Under God".

acludem
 

Forum List

Back
Top