Appeals court: Pledge of Allegiance still unconstitutional

Stuie · February 28, 2003, 16:53

From cnn.com:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court Friday rejected the Bush administration's request to reconsider its decision that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of the phrase "under God."

The ruling means the case could go to the Supreme Court. In Washington, a Justice Department spokesman said no decision has been made about whether to appeal the ruling there.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it would not accept any other petitions to reconsider last June's ruling by a three-judge panel that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public classrooms.

Ruling on a lawsuit brought by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, the court panel decided 2-1 that Newdow's daughter should not be subjected to the words "under God" at her public school.

The court said the phrase was an endorsement of God, and the Constitution forbids public schools or other governmental entities from endorsing religion.

President Bush and Congress immediately condemned the decision, which would prevent public schoolchildren from reciting the pledge in the nine western states covered by the nation's largest -- and, critics charge, most liberal -- appeals court.

Those states are Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

Newdow's lawsuit began as a challenge to a 1954 decision by Congress to add the words "under God" to the pledge. The lawsuit later sidestepped into a parental rights case over a custody dispute between Newdow and his 8-year-old child's mother, Sandra Banning of Elk Grove.

In response to the court's original ruling, Banning asserted that her daughter is not harmed by reciting the pledge and is not opposed to God. Banning, who now has legal custody of the child, urged the court to consider whether Newdow even had legal standing to bring the case on behalf of his daughter. The court said Newdow did have such legal standing.

Oerdin · February 28, 2003, 16:56

This ruling comes from a San Fransisco court. Just wait until the motion leaves La-La land and gets reviewed by a court in another part of the country. It will get shot down.

Sava · February 28, 2003, 16:59

"Under God" should not be in the pledge. Period. What part of "religious freedom" don't these dumbasses against this ruling understand?

Az · February 28, 2003, 17:08

oh, who gives a ****. I guess you believe in god, since you celebrate Christmas.

just another tradition. give it a ****ing rest.

"farting still unconstitutional"

Dauphin · February 28, 2003, 17:12

It will be changed to "one nation under Dubya".

DinoDoc · February 28, 2003, 17:14

I'll wait until a real court reviews the case. The 9th is well known for thier legal masochism.

Oerdin · February 28, 2003, 17:18

Freedom of religion has never meant that absolutely all religious expressions should be removed from the lexicon. The founding fathers even used phrases like "Freedom to worship God as they please" and refered to God frequently in official documents. They realized that those phrases did not set up an official state Church and so were perfectly legal.

The modern socialist attempts to purge the word God is an extreamist view point and like all extreamist view points it should be moderated.

Sava · February 28, 2003, 17:35

Quote:

The modern socialist attempts to purge the word God is an extreamist view point and like all extreamist view points it should be moderated

I pity you. Wait... no I pity the people of Sacremento, now

Azazel... it's no tradition. The phrase "Under God" was added in 1954 as a propaganda tool to show the Soviets we were a "Christian" Nation.

oh yeah Oerdin, civil rights and equality would have been extreme views in Nazi Germany. It doesn't mean they aren't correct.

Az · February 28, 2003, 17:41

really? didn't know that.

Imran Siddiqui · February 28, 2003, 17:45

Window dressing until the Supreme Court shoots this down as a de minimis intrusion on freedom of religion. Maybe they'll even clarify the Establishment Clause further, but I doubt it.

Velociryx · February 28, 2003, 17:48

what a rediculous thing to be debating in the first place.

Perhaps....just PERHAPS they could....I dunno....work on some more pressing problems and tell little susie to cover her ears if those two particular words hurt?

-=Vel=-

Sava · February 28, 2003, 17:49

Well, if the Establishment cause is being misinterpretted by the 9th Court's ruling, then we need to add a constitutional amendment to specify the division between religion and government.

Velociryx · February 28, 2003, 17:55

OH for chrissake! This is absurd! Don't confess your sins to a politian and don't elect a bishop for public office, and there ya go.

The main reason FOR the separation of church and state was so that there was no intermixing of agenda, not to draw a line in the sand and tell people they can't say the "G-word" in public buildings....LOL

That's just stupid. Next, we'll need a law banning any form of political discussion at church pot-luck suppers....cos you know, church and state need to be separate, and it's not enough that we just keep it simple, we have to let the lawyers make a few mil off of it too....

-=Vel=-

Imran Siddiqui · February 28, 2003, 17:58

Quote:

then we need to add a constitutional amendment to specify the division between religion and government.

Why? What is the problem with government officials being religious and saying 'God bless America' or whatever?

As long as it prevents having an Official Relgion, I don't see the problem with the clause.

Velociryx · February 28, 2003, 18:01

I agree with Imran....they're not saying "The Judeo-Christian God Bless America"

Or "Thor Bless America"

"god" is a rather generic term, and when speaking, you can't hear the capitol letter, so what's the big deal? Some peole have too much time on their hands, and clearly need to get over themselves....

-=Vel=-

Spiffor · February 28, 2003, 18:03

I think it is outrageous to force children to tell the word "God", and to attach themselves to God.

The State acknowledges the existence of God, which means the State is hostile to atheists. As simple as that.

There is no extremism in refusing the word "God" in a pledge of allegiance. Religious propaganda may belong to other places, but should be completely expelled from schools.

Imran Siddiqui · February 28, 2003, 18:09

Quote:

I think it is outrageous to force children to tell the word "God", and to attach themselves to God.

Um... no one is being forced to say God.

Sava · February 28, 2003, 18:10

There's nothing wrong with officials saying stuff like that. Just do it in your own free time. My tax dollars shouldn't be going to the furtherment of other people's religious beliefs. Government shouldn't meddle in religion, religion shouldn't meddle in government. Vel... God only applies to monotheistic religions. Some people want to spread and preach their religion and do it with my tax dollars. They want to force my children to believe in their concept of a deity, and that's wrong.

I just heard a bunch of dumbass conservatives ranting about how children are getting teased because their parents are going to Iraq. Well what about the children who will get teased because they don't believe in God, or because their parents don't believe in God? Huh? It's just more proof that the supporters of "Under God" are a bunch of f*cking hypocrits.

Velociryx · February 28, 2003, 18:10

Are schools not the places where you gain exposure to different ideas?

Ideas that maybe you don't agree with, but are important in the world nonetheless.

Is not exposure to ideas and allowing people to draw their own conclusions about them part of....freedom.

If you don't wanna say the pledge....don't say it!

But don't tell the kid next to you that he can't say it either....should be his....*choice* to make....not yours, no?....

-=Vel=-

Spiffor · February 28, 2003, 18:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I think it is outrageous to force children to tell the word "God", and to attach themselves to God.

Um... no one is being forced to say God.

I thought children were forced to say the pledge of allegiance, with the very words "under god" in it.

Ramo · February 28, 2003, 18:12

"Under God" is unconstitutional, but irrelevent. I find the whole idea of having school children recite loyalty oaths rather disturbing, however.

Velociryx · February 28, 2003, 18:13

In the first place, given all the other problems we have to work on, I would be sorely surprised if this ranked in the top one thousand or so.

People do lots of stuff you don't like with your tax dollars....so?

I'm not going to argue about it one way or another because frankly, it's a stupid debate, and not worth the effort one way or another.

Perhaps when we have world peace, no crime, no hunger, no poverty, and no drug problem, we can address the issue then, but till then, in the context of the sheer size and magnitude of our OTHER problems, it seems rather a waste of breath to me.

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · February 28, 2003, 18:16

Yeah, in some schools Spiffor, but again, you gott remember that it's 7:30 in the morning and most of these teachers haven't had their first cup of coffee yet. They're sitting there, bleary-eyed at their desk, and frankly don't give a rat's a$$ who says what. The whole class could mouth the words while listening to the latest from MegaDeath for all they care.

-=Vel=-

Sava · February 28, 2003, 18:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
"Under God" is unconstitutional, but irrelevent. I find the whole idea of having school children recite loyalty oaths rather disturbing, however.

And according to Vel, religious freedom isn't all that important because the very people that are taking away our freedoms are creating bigger problems around the world and in our own country.

Arrian · February 28, 2003, 18:19

I don't recall being "forced" to say the Pledge. I stopped saying it as I got older because it annoyed me (both the concept of pledging allegiance to my country every morning like an automaton and the "God" reference). Nobody hassled me.

-Arrian

Spiffor · February 28, 2003, 18:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Are schools not the places where you gain exposure to different ideas?

Ideas that maybe you don't agree with, but are important in the world nonetheless.

Is not exposure to ideas and allowing people to draw their own conclusions about them part of....freedom.

If you don't wanna say the pledge....don't say it!

But don't tell the kid next to you that he can't say it either....should be his....*choice* to make....not yours, no?....

In elementary school, I used to tell whatever the teacher asked me to tell, didn't you ? The teacher's viewpoint was overly dominant, I hardly call this "different ideas" ; I call this "forcing ideas".

"Different ideas" come from sources you equate with. A child talking about religion with another child is confronted to different ideas. A child listening to his teacher is listening to the "knowledge" (remember, teachers are here to transmit the truth kids don't know yet, like "1+1=2"

)

The government should not endorse religious dogma in the official education. It hurts the right to be an atheist. It ridicules atheistic beliefs.
This religious pledge is as shocking as, say, a pledge featuring "...and god sucks". The very same principle.

EDIT : IDEA !

What about threadjacking and discussing the merits of a pledge without "under god", but with "and god sucks" at the end ?

Velociryx · February 28, 2003, 18:20

Same here Arrian....nobody stood there with a gun to my head...sheesh guys...why not train some of that enthusiasm onto REAL problems....

-=Vel=-

Imran Siddiqui · February 28, 2003, 18:21

Quote:

I thought children were forced to say the pledge of allegiance, with the very words "under god" in it.

Like I said, no one is forced to say anything.

DinoDoc · February 28, 2003, 18:21

Poly's search feature sucks! Why can't I find the first thread on this?

Berzerker · February 28, 2003, 18:21

Oerdin -

Quote:

Freedom of religion has never meant that absolutely all religious expressions should be removed from the lexicon.

This isn't about removing religious phrases from the lexicon, it's about whether or not teachers and public schools should be "requesting" students to stand and take a pledge of allegiance to all that is in the pledge - including a deity. You know damn well the fuss people would be making if a teacher asked children to stand and affirm a belief in Satan.

Quote:

The founding fathers even used phrases like "Freedom to worship God as they please" and refered to God frequently in official documents. They realized that those phrases did not set up an official state Church and so were perfectly legal.

And yet they also provided an alternative oath of office for people who got elected but did not want to, or could not, swear on the Bible and in the name of God since oath taking was condemned by Jesus...HMMMMMM...It's one thing for you to say you believe in God, it's another for you to ask my child to stand up in a public school room in front of other kids and pledge allegiance to a flag and all that it supposedly stands for.

Quote:

The modern socialist attempts to purge the word God is an extreamist view point and like all extreamist view points it should be moderated.

Not being a socialist, I cannot speak to their motives, but as someone who believes in freedom, including religious freedom, don't be subjecting other people's children to the coercion of peer pressure inherent in pledge taking by public school children. Your religious freedom doesn't give you the right to indoctrinate someone else's child into your religion. Doesn't it strike you just a bit peculiar that Muslim theocracies pull this kind of crap with children. Yes, little Abdul, time to stand with your classmates and profess a belief in Allah.