Yay! The Pledge of Allegiance survives!!

[-Carnifex-]

Proof?

[Restola]

No, the Supreme court said that the guy didn't have any standing to take it to court. We talked about this in both my Poly

I miss-read this:

The justices said that the pledge does not violate the First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of religion by the government.

...and although I realized it was not a ruling, I didn't realize only 3 of the Justices said it.

My mistake.

[vf-xx]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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. (March arguments) 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 removed himself from participation in the case, presumably because of remarks he had made that seemed to telegraph his view that the pledge is constitutional. "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.

I don't have a link directly to the article. This was yanked from a thread at www.2005boards.com

If you like I have another article from Bloomberg, but I figured the Associated Press one would be better.

[vf-xx]

I miss-read this:

...and although I realized it was not a ruling, I didn't realize only 3 of the Justices said it.

My mistake.

Sokay, it's just the penalty of taking both Intro to US Government and American Public Policy at the same time. I get 4 hours of politics a day. :spit_take

Sigh.

[Hasty8]

Here's my two cents on it.

The words "Under God" should be removed for the following reasons-
1 - Francis Bellamy, the man who wrote it was a priest. He did not include, he commenetd that he was against adding it and his decendants to this day insist that he would be greatly upset by it's being added.
2 - It is a reminder of a very bad time in our history. As posted earlier, these two words were added during the Cold War in order to separate America from the godless communisits. The McCarthy era was a horrid timeframe of the ultimate perversion of one of our greatest freedom, namely being innocent until proven guilty. McCarthy, with the help of the vile Roy Cohn, helped destroy countless lives by simply stating, with out and tngible proof that certain people were communisits because of stupid choices most made while in college. I remember my college days very well. I thought I knew everything. Also, the McCarthy era is dispicable due to that fact that these people were being branded traitor and wrose by simply exercising their constitutional rights. There never had been nor will there ever will be (I hope) barring people from choosing what political group they can join.
3 - The use of the words instills within our children that religion is approved by all and that to abstain from saying the pledge will ostracize the child from the group. This is fact and not fiction. As a parent (and a one time child) I can clearly see how my actions (and the actions of my father) shape me and will shape my son. By having the teacher or other authority figure lead the class in the pledge it instills within the child a sense that this is right and to not believe is wrong.

Now, before everyone jumps down my throat saying that the kids can make up their own minds, how many here have ever seen a 1st or 2nd grader make a rational and well educated decision? I'm an adult and I rarely see some adults do that.

Also, those parents who do no call their god "god" but something else have a very valid point here. The term "god" immediately conjures up an image of a Judeo-Christian diety and in my school district at least, that is not an accurate depiction of the population at all.

Finally, as an athesit myself, I feel that it is my right, and no one else's to teach my son about the concepts of god and religion. While I am athesit I still bring my son up in the Jewish faith because our's is different from so many other religions. For us, our religion is who we are.

Honestly, I think if parents were to take the time and rationally talk to their kids about the issue then it can be kept. While I believe that the words should be taken out for the first two points, the last point I am not so strong on.

[personman]

What's athesit?

[paintballrulzs]

The real question is "Why was it added?"

It was added to appease Joseph Mcarthy. Is that the statement we want to make about our country?

What if a moslem child says "under Allah"? A Moslem-American is, after all, part of how this country IS today.

I believe it was added because they felt that after WWII our country had lost their religion, Not sure exactly just what i think.

It isn't violationg the 1st ammendment because they aren't forcing her to say it. She could say the whole pledge without that part or just not say the pledge at all.

[Hasty8]

What's athesit?

Atheist = a person who does not, or chooses not, to believe in god.

Agnostic - a person who is unsure as to the existance of god.

That being said, Did you hear the one about the dyslexic insomniac agnostic?

He kept laying awake at night wondering if there truly was a dog. :rofl:

[Hasty8]

I believe it was added because they felt that after WWII our country had lost their religion, Not sure exactly just what i think.

It isn't violationg the 1st ammendment because they aren't forcing her to say it. She could say the whole pledge without that part or just not say the pledge at all.

It was added in 1952 by Congress in order to separate the United States fromt he other "godless communists" as was posted earlier in this thread I believe.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

What's athesit?

Someone who believes there is no god, and it is spelled, atheist.

not to be a spelling nazi or anything.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Atheist = a person who does not, or chooses not, to believe in god.

Agnostic - a person who is unsure as to the existance of god.

That being said, Did you hear the one about the dyslexic insomniac agnostic?

He kept laying awake at night wondering if there truly was a dog. :rofl:

:rofl: that is a good one, and you beat me to it with personman

[personman]

Actually, I know what an Athiest is, but you said you were an Athesit..
What's an Athesit?

[1stdeadeye]

What's athesit?

Athiest is another form of religion or set of beliefs. Apparently it is okay to force your system on everyone else when your beliefs state that God does not exist.

[Hasty8]

My rabbi loves this one but most will only get if they are or know anyone Jewish.

Did you hear about the dyslexic rabbi?

He kept walking around saying "Yo!"

(Oy-vey is a Yiddish word that is roughtly equivalent to the english term Oh feces.)

[1stdeadeye]

Actually, I know what an Athiest is, but you said you were an Athesit..
What's an Athesit?

Sorry missed your joke!