A goddamn narrow ruling

[catbirdseat]

The court said atheist Michael Newdow 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.

 

What a cop out!

 

Story

[iain]

Fact is, I don't think I really understood the whole pledge of allegiance thing when I was in elementary school. I just thought it was an annoying thing teachers make kids do for no reason, so I don't see it as a big deal, just a silly thing to make kids do.

 

I do think the "under God" portion is a lame addition.

[scott_harpell]

I am against the "under God" thing merely because it was an addition from the original. Nothing more... nothing less...

[Greg_W]

Stupid shit like this pisses me off. This little girl is not required to say the pledge if she doesn't want to. This asshole is using his daughter to further his own anti-religion agenda. That's fucking pathetic.

 

And, cbs, regarding his legal authority as her guardian, it sounds like he sees her on weekends. So, technically, her mother is her primary LEGAL guardian because she spends the majority of her time at that residence; that's how custody agreements and parenting plans work.

 

On a broader front, why does this guy feel that he can remove the Pledge for everyone else, too? There's enough out there that detracts from America; kids in this country ought to be exposed to what a great and unique country this is, as well as a love for country. What's wrong with that? I repeat, no one is forcing kids to say the Pledge; they have the option to stand silent.

[willstrickland]

My schools made you stand, but you didn't have to recite the pledge. I think it's lame that people are arguing over something that was a non-original "red scare" addition to the thing.

 

The separation of church and state is tied to the language "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." in the Bill of Rights.

 

1. Is the pledge a law?

2. Does inclusion of the generic word "god" in any way represent "establishment" of religion? It's not like it says "one nation, under our Baptist God".

3. By extension of the argument, do we also have to remove "in god we trust" from the currency?

4. Should we also amend the Declaration of Independence to read "all men are evolved equal"?

 

I personally think the pledge should not have been altered in the first place. But really, the argument is weak. And now that it has been altered, does it cause more harm to stir up animosity over trying to prohibit or change it, than leaving it in place?

 

Think of all the money and time these jackasses spent on this case. Think of all the tax dollars that went to paying the judges, court clerks, etc. Apply that time and money to volunteer work, community cleanup, delivering food to the elderly, etc. We have some fahqed up priorities in this country.

[specialed]

The court said atheist Michael Newdow 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.

 

What a cop out!

 

Story

 

Cop out my ass. Plaintiff was a stupid fuck for not hiring a lawyer who actually knows something about federal court justiciability instead of prodeeding pro se and assuming that he had third party standing to litigate on behalf of his daughter, who he doesn't even have legal custody of.

[scott_harpell]

Think of all the money and time these jackasses spent on this case. Think of all the tax dollars that went to paying the judges, court clerks, etc. Apply that time and money to volunteer work, community cleanup, delivering food to the elderly, etc. We have some fahqed up priorities in this country.

 

[arlen]

1. Is the pledge a law?

No, but lots of laws have specific things to say about religion in schools, including the "No child left behind" law, which takes away funding from schools that don't allow public prayer (such as broadcast over the intercom).

2. Does inclusion of the generic word "god" in any way represent "establishment" of religion? It's not like it says "one nation, under our Baptist God".

What's a child most likely to take it to mean? In any case, the laws that deal with public school policy have to appear indifferent to religion, or they violate the establishment clause. If you're into strict constructionism, it's probably relevant that the EC was for the founders about disestablishmentarianism. They were pretty much all Deists or Unitarianists in the first place.

3. By extention of the argument, do we also have to remove "in god we trust" from the currency?

I don't much care to remove every reference to religion from government documents, but since US money didn't consistently say "In God We Trust" until the McCarthey hysteria, I'm all for cleaning that particular shit stain off our public property.

4. Should we also amend the Declaration of Independence to read "all men are evolved equal"?

If it'd stop schools trying to present creationism as science, hell yes. But it wouldn't, it isn't salient enough to be taken as an endorsement by the state, and most kids aren't required to recite it everyday.

I personally think the pledge should not have been altered in the first place. But really, the argument is weak. And now that it has been altered, does it cause more harm to stir up animosity over trying to prohibit or change it, than leaving it in place?

I personally don't see a lot of harm in this case, other than making the country even more polarized. If it gives us a reason to think about law & religion, well, right on then.

 

I found this quote on the general issue of religion in schools:

 

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment requires public school officials to be neutral in their treatment of religion, showing neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression such as prayer. Accordingly, the First Amendment forbids religious activity that is sponsored by the government but protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals, and the line between government-sponsored and privately initiated religious expression is vital to a proper understanding of the First Amendment's scope. As the Court has explained in several cases, "there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect."

 

 

 

The Supreme Court's decisions over the past forty years set forth principles that distinguish impermissible governmental religious speech from the constitutionally protected private religious speech of students. For example, teachers and other public school officials may not lead their classes in prayer, devotional readings from the Bible, or other religious activities. Nor may school officials attempt to persuade or compel students to participate in prayer or other religious activities. Such conduct is "attributable to the State" and thus violates the Establishment Clause.

 

from department of ed

[JoshK]

For those of you who think it's much ado about nothing to want "god" removed from the pledge, let me ask you why it was such a good idea to introduce it in the first place? It wasn't in the original pledge...

[cj001f]

I repeat, no one is forcing kids to say the Pledge; they have the option to stand silent.

My freedom loving school (Fairfax, Va) did make you recite the pledge.

 

What's with the Rehnquist court and so many copouts lately? First Corporate Free Speech, now the pledge, what's next?

[Ratboy]

US money didn't consistently say "In God We Trust" until the McCarthey hysteria

 

It first made its appearance right after the Civil War and was used consistently until the 1880s I believe. It did disappear for a while around the turn of the century, but has been used consistently since the 1930s.

[Ratboy]

For those of you who think it's much ado about nothing to want "god" removed from the pledge, let me ask you why it was such a good idea to introduce it in the first place? It wasn't in the original pledge...

 

It wasn't a good idea to add it in the first place, IMO. It was a quasi feel good initiative to fight those godless communists. About as effective as renaming french fries to freedom fries. As far as this whole thing goes, there are much bigger church/state issues that deserve attention, like "faith-based initiatives" that only give money to a specific religious denomination. Fighting the word "god" in the Pledge of Allegience and on coinage just rallies the political opposition for no real gain.

[Skeezix]

This is a big deal. The relationship between church and state is one of the big issues why united we don't stand in the U.S. In Washington State, schools are required to lead the pledge every day. That means either teachers in the classroom, or someone leading it over the P.A. for the whole school. The US Supreme Court ruled that students don't have to recite it, but they may not be disruptive during the ritual. The Supreme Court dodged it this time, but it will be back. My view: change state law so schools don't say it every day, because it becomes rote, routine, and meaningless. Also, why pledge allegiance to the flag? OK, it's a symbol, but why not say "I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, etc...?" And I'm for separation of Church and State, as in the Constitution. Religion plays a legitimate role, because what would life be like without mythology? But nobody's voodoo is governing me! I don't have a problem with today's ruling.

[arlen]

US money didn't consistently say "In God We Trust" until the McCarthey hysteria

 

It first made its appearance right after the Civil War and was used consistently until the 1880s I believe. It did disappear for a while around the turn of the century, but has been used consistently since the 1930s.

 

It wasn't on any paper currency at all until 1957, when the anti-communist crusade made it the national motto, and wasn't uniformly on coins until 1938.

Edited June 15, 2004 by arlen

[jjd]

but why not say "I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, etc...?"

 

"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."

[MollyWorld]

I'll never understand why people care so much.