http://www.msnbc.com/news/980091.asp Supreme Court to rule on pledge ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 — The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the Pledge of Allegiance, recited by generations of American schoolchildren, is an unconstitutional blending of church and state. The case involves a California atheist whose 9-year-old daughter, like most elementary school children, hears the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily THE CASE sets up an emotional showdown over God in the public schools and in public life. It will settle whether the phrase “one nation under God” will remain a part of the patriotic oath as it is recited in most classrooms. The court will hear the case sometime next year. The justices also agreed to consider a challenge to the federal Child Online Protection Act that alleges the law restricts too much material that adults have the right to see or buy. On a more practical level, the ruling may determine whether the government can require some form of adults-only screening system to ensure children cannot see material deemed harmful to them. The Pledge of Allegiance case involves a California atheist whose 9-year-old daughter, like most elementary school children, hears the pledge recited daily. RULING TRIGGERED FUROR A national uproar followed a federal appeals court ruling last year that the reference to God made the pledge unconstitutional in public schools. That ruling, if allowed to stand, would strip the reference from the version of the pledge recited by millions of schoolchildren in California and other western states. 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.” The administration, the girl’s school and atheist Michael Newdow all asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the case. DISTRICT’S APPEAL WILL BE HEARD The court, however, agreed only to hear the appeal from the school district. The administration will be able to weigh in separately. The court also said it will consider whether Newdow had the proper legal footing to bring the case. In its legal filings so far, the administration has 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 told the court. It is far-fetched to say such references post a real danger of imposing state-sponsored religion, Olson wrote. Moreover, being a parent of a child in public school does not give a parent the power to dictate what the child will be exposed to, Olson said. “Public schools routinely instruct students about evolution, war and other matters with which some parent may disagree on religious, political or moral grounds,” he said in his appeal. The administration also claimed that Newdow cannot sue on behalf of his daughter because he does not have custody of her. Newdow and the child’s mother, Sandra Banning, have waged a long and bitter custody battle over the child, who lives with her mother. 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. To complicate matters, Banning has told the court she has no objection to the pledge. Newdow holds medical and legal degrees, and says he is an ordained minister. He is representing himself in filings at the high court, and has said he will argue his case in person. ‘SECOND CLASS CITIZENS’ “Those who deny the existence of a supreme being have been turned into second-class citizens by a government that continuously sends messages that ’real Americans’ believe in God,” Newdow told the justices in his appeal. Newdow sued the school, 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
It should stay, though I wouldn't mind if the under God part was removed. I mean, the pledge in it's many years of existence, existed longer without the "under God" phrase than it has existed with it. It was only added in because of the Red Scare. Because everybody knows that Communism goes against the teachings of christianity, it was added in to keep little kids from becoming commies. IRCC, it was written by a minister who was a Christian Socialist (irony).
Yes, there should be an additional choice in the poll for keeping the pledge without the words "under God" since many people's questions about the pledge stem only from those two words...
but the fact that we go to have an education not recite something over and over everyday until it gets grilled into our brains. i cant stand having to get up and saying it. i respect the american flag and all, but the pledge its just a bunch of words put together by a man and does not represent America. or the education system, and i dont see how it helps in any way towards education at all. i mean its like 2 minutes of "valuable" class time being taken away.
I thought that was education. I don't think it should be state law that the pledge be recited daily. It should be up to the teacher, or at least the school.
do they say prayers to Allah in schools in Islamic countries each day?? every culture has its own values...ritual in reverence of those values is part of every culture that dots history. the united states is clearly no different in that regard.
actually NO. i went to saudi arabia quite a few times and the prayers are only offered in private schools, public ones give breaks at prayer times but do not force them upon you
The United States is no different in that regard??? Are you kidding? Considering one of our major founding principles was freedom of religion, we damn well better be different than countries which require allegiance to a deity in order to receive an education. Posters in this forum have suggested recently that the danger in the Middle East is less about Islam and more about theocracies. The United States is not one and allegiance to God ought not to be required in pledging allegiance to the country. Frankly, pledging allegiance to the country should not be required of its citizens, but take the God stuff out of the pledge and I'd happily change my vote.
i agree, if we are going around starting wars with countries because they dont allow their citizens freedom of this and that, then how can we be hypocrytical and do the same and combine god and gov.
It is a pledge to the Country you are residing in. If You cannot Pledge your Alliegence to this Country why are you here? Is it indoctrination . .. . perhaps I took it as part and parsal of being an American If the pledge is just a bunch of words the the Flag is just a peice of clothe and the constitution is just a peice of paper It has a meaning It is one of the few times in the day all the kids are Standing in unity behind SOMETHING . .and that SOMETHING is this country Rocket River
ok...fair enough...honestly, i wasn't focusing on the under God part when I said that...what if that part were removed? would that make you view my original post any differently. what if it weren't required? i mean, i'm not sure it's "required" today...if it's just done and you're not required to stand and participate, does that make a difference to you?
Just noticed that Scalia has recused himself in this case, setting up the admittedly remote possibility of a 4-4 decision, upholding the Ninth Circuit ruling. I still say that this is a silly fight, but if Newdow pulls it off, it would be pretty impressive.
"Under God" is such a vague statement. We did indeed found this country on the concept freedom of religion, among others; but freedom of religion is just that. Religion is, by definition, belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. Basically, religion is the belief and reverence of God. Whatever god that may be. The pledge doesn't specify a particular god, so I don't see how that intrudes on anybody's freedom of religion (by definition). But MM, I don't think it should be required; it's just that if it is, I don't construe it as a big deal. I agree with your first post altogether.
Hey, Max. Sorry. Missed this in all the excitement about Powell being exposed as a lying liar. (What'd you think of that, by the way? Don't answer here -- I've derailed enough threads for one day.) I said in my last post I'd change my vote if they took out "under God," which wasn't in there originally anyway. But no, allowing school children to remain silent while the rest of them said "under God" would not be okay with me. It is a clear violation of the separation of Church and State and a clear violation of freedom of religion. It's a no brainer to me that it should be removed. Would taking the "under God" stuff out of your post make me view it differently? Of course. Unless I'm missing something, there wouldn't be a post without it. I think you know I'm sensitive to religious freedom -- I am not anti religion -- but that sensitivity extends to freedom from religion as well. This pledge stuff equals school prayer, which we all know is not allowed.
Dallas: You know I like you but you couldn't be more wrong here. Freedom of Religion does not presume that all Americans believe in a god of any sort -- in fact it provides the same courtesies to those who don't as those who do. A great many Americans do not believe in a higher power of any sort and shouldn't have to expose their kids to someone else's ideas about something that intimate in order to get a public education.
I support the pledge as it was prior to the 1954 change to it's present form. The change was in response to the Red Scare of the Joe McCarthy era, as has been mentioned. The original is fine, in my opinion. "Under God" clearly violates the separation of Church and State that is one of the fundamental premises of this country. I'm surprised that it has lasted this long. Look for the Supreme Court to throw it out.
Okay, I think you're absolutely right. I just don't think that at the time of our country's founding anybody was thinking about "Godless" people. Freedom of religion back then was really freedom to worship whatever god you wanted. That's why the Pledge of Allegiance includes the phrase "under God," because they were working under that mindframe when whoever it was came up with it. But things change and that's what Supreme Courts are here for. I honestly feel that the "under god" part of the pledge is unconstitutional. I do think it should be removed, I just don't see how it is offensive to people who don't worship god. I don't, in particular, and it never bothered me. But I'm sure it bothers some people, which is why I do think it should be removed. I know my opinion sounded different than that in my earlier post...it's just that I wanted to toss that argument in there. Didn't really have my heart behind it, I was just pondering.
I just think it is weird that Francis Bellamy wrote these words, and now "you" are expected to say them daily. I'm not nessecarily against it, I just find it kind of strange.
