One Nation, UNDER GOD!

Chat about anything and everything... (well almost anything) Whether it be the front porch or the pot belly stove or news of interest or a topic of your liking, this is the place to post it.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Message
Author
User avatar
azsnowman
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8591
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 8:56 pm
Location: Pinetop Arizona. Elevation 7102' (54 miles west of NM border)

One Nation, UNDER GOD!

#1 Postby azsnowman » Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:51 pm

LOL.....the *ahem* Gentleman who wanted to take "One Nation, Under God" out of the Pledge LOST his case :lol: KUDOS to the Supreme Court Judges!


http://www.azcentral.com


High court: Atheist father can't sue over 'God' in Pledge

Associated Press

"I may be the best father in the world," Michael Newdow said shortly after the ruling was announced.

Associated Press
Jun. 14, 2004 11:30 AM


WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.

At least for now, the decision - which came on Flag Day - leaves untouched the practice in which millions of schoolchildren around the country begin the day by reciting the pledge.

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.


Other action
• Justices OK federal suits challenging state taxes
• Court rejects lawsuit over Iranian hostage-taking
• Justices take on police behavior during searches
• A new look into 4 wartime claims
• Remember? Text of the Pledge

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, the court said. Eight justices voted to reverse a lower court ruling in Newdow's favor.

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.

"I may be the best father in the world," Newdow said shortly after the ruling was announced. "She spends 10 days a month with me. The suggestion that I don't have sufficient custody is just incredible. This is such a blow for parental rights."

The 10-year-old's mother, Sandra Banning, had 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.

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 ruling came on the day that Congress set aside to honor the national flag. The ruling also came exactly 50 years after Congress added the disputed words "under God" to what had been a secular patriotic oath.

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.

Newdow's daughter, 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 to "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.

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. He said he would continue the fight because "the pledge is still unconstitutional."

At a Sacramento, Calif., news conference, Elk Grove Unified School District Superintendent Dave Gordon called the pledge "a unifying, patriotic exercise that reflects the historical ideals upon which this great country was founded."

He said he'd have preferred that the Supreme Court had decided the merits of the case "and settled it once and for all for our nation."

Newdow had numerous backers at the high court, although they were outnumbered by legal briefs in favor of keeping the wording of the pledge as it is.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the court "ducked this constitutional issue today," and that students "should not feel compelled by school officials to subscribe to a particular religious belief in order to show love of country."

On the other side, the American Center for Law and Justice said the ruling removes a cloud from the pledge.

"While the court did not address the merits of the case, it is clear that the Pledge of Allegiance and the words 'under God' can continue to be recited by students across America," said Jay Sekulow, the group's chief counsel.

Congress adopted the pledge as a national patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress added the phrase "under God" 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.
0 likes   

User avatar
Lindaloo
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 22658
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Pascagoula, MS

#2 Postby Lindaloo » Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:53 pm

For now!
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#3 Postby GalvestonDuck » Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:55 pm

He didn't officially lose it because, darn it, they didn't rule on it. They just threw it out after deciding that he couldn't speak for his daughter.

If the non-believer manages to get custody of his daughter, he might bring back his battle to the USASC.

Pssst...Dennis? I already beat ya to this topic. :wink:
0 likes   

User avatar
azsnowman
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8591
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 8:56 pm
Location: Pinetop Arizona. Elevation 7102' (54 miles west of NM border)

#4 Postby azsnowman » Mon Jun 14, 2004 4:24 pm

GalvestonDuck wrote:
Pssst...Dennis? I already beat ya to this topic. :wink:



OPPS :oops: Sorry, I didn't see it "LOL!"

Dennis :oops:
0 likes   

User avatar
deb_in_nc
Category 3
Category 3
Posts: 824
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 6:51 pm
Location: Greensboro, NC
Contact:

#5 Postby deb_in_nc » Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:45 pm

The man shouldn't have custody of the family dog.
0 likes   

User avatar
Stephanie
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 23843
Age: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
Location: Glassboro, NJ

#6 Postby Stephanie » Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:51 pm

I think that the MAJORITY of Americans, no matter what their belief is wants "One Nation Under God" kept in the Pledge. I say that the majority's opinions need to be respected as well.

I'm glad that the Supreme Court threw the case out, but to me, it seemed like they were grasping at straws to find a reason why. That legal authority is a stretch - true yes, but it could've just as well had been a father or mother that did have custody of her.
0 likes   

User avatar
pawlee
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 778
Age: 51
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 2:32 am
Location: Central IL
Contact:

#7 Postby pawlee » Tue Jun 15, 2004 3:47 am

what a douchebag... if he has no hope for the future that there is a divine purpose and reasoning for life then why the hell did he procreate in the first place? wasn't the fact that he was blessed with a child enough of a wake up call to think "gee, there's something going on here that's bigger than me!" i hope his daughter grows up, gets saved and marries a pentecostal minister... the irony about anyone wanting the "under god" to be removed is that in the end, that's where they'll be, "under god" crying up to him for forgiveness from deep within the pit of hell. this of course unless their atheist believe reigns true and they cease to exist. boy wouldn't that suck, pay your dues in life only to end up as nothing. at last check, god gave us power of choice so if that's what they want, that's what they get... this according to HIM.
0 likes   

Guest

#8 Postby Guest » Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:32 am

pawlee wrote:what a douchebag... if he has no hope for the future that there is a divine purpose and reasoning for life then why the hell did he procreate in the first place? wasn't the fact that he was blessed with a child enough of a wake up call to think "gee, there's something going on here that's bigger than me!" i hope his daughter grows up, gets saved and marries a pentecostal minister... the irony about anyone wanting the "under god" to be removed is that in the end, that's where they'll be, "under god" crying up to him for forgiveness from deep within the pit of hell. this of course unless their atheist believe reigns true and they cease to exist. boy wouldn't that suck, pay your dues in life only to end up as nothing. at last check, god gave us power of choice so if that's what they want, that's what they get... this according to HIM.


I think this guy went overboard, although I was never a big fan of the pledge.

I dont think you have to be deeply religious to have children, and I know some kids who were raised without religion who have turned out quite well.
0 likes   

User avatar
streetsoldier
Retired Staff
Retired Staff
Posts: 9705
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Under the rainbow

#9 Postby streetsoldier » Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:44 am

Background: Newdow's ex is a Christian, and has been taking her daughter to church and teaching her traditional Christian values; the girl has NO problem in reciting the Pledge, but Newdow (who has initiated other "separation"-based lawsuits), infuriated by this "indoctrination", pressed it to the limit.

We will hear more about this from Newdow...he's another atheist (read: God-hater) of the Madalyn Murray O'Hair strain. :larrow:
0 likes   

User avatar
Skywatch_NC
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 10949
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:31 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC
Contact:

#10 Postby Skywatch_NC » Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:52 am

Why a Christian would marry an atheist is beyond me...

Yes, that may sound harsh...but if the wife had a 'sound' mind on her shoulders... :roll:

Eric
0 likes   

User avatar
WEATHER53
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 470
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 10:43 pm
Location: College Park, MD

#11 Postby WEATHER53 » Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:58 am

Prescriptive activities, although widely unpopular with the young, nontheless build the conformity and character that lead to success in an adult life. People like this guy are a very, very insecure and insincere lot. If they were really strong in their own beliefs, they would not need the obliteration of other's rights and beliefs. If you wish to not pray or pledge, then just do not. It is that simple and nowdays, and for a long time really, no one will bother you.The idea that a child will be irrepuably damaged by staying in her seat during the pledge is such softy baloney. But that is not good enough for these insecure folks, instead of taking the comfort they can get by avoiding the prayer and pledges they wish to take their comfort by having those opportunities eliminated for us that wish to participate. Smacks of fascism.
0 likes   

Guest

#12 Postby Guest » Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:49 am

I think there is general agreement that this guy Newdall is a bizarre fellow.

The better question is whether Under God is constitutional.

I suspect it is, but I still do not see the value in making 8 year olds stand up every morning and say this mantra.
0 likes   

User avatar
Lindaloo
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 22658
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Pascagoula, MS

#13 Postby Lindaloo » Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:50 am

zwyts wrote:I think there is general agreement that this guy Newdall is a bizarre fellow.

The better question is whether Under God is constitutional.

I suspect it is, but I still do not see the value in making 8 year olds stand up every morning and say this mantra.



America, America GOD shed his grace on thee!
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#14 Postby GalvestonDuck » Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:53 am

zwyts wrote:I suspect it is, but I still do not see the value in making 8 year olds stand up every morning and say this mantra.


Obviously, no one ever shared Red Skelton's monologue with you when you were younger?
0 likes   

Guest

#15 Postby Guest » Tue Jun 15, 2004 11:12 am

GalvestonDuck wrote:
zwyts wrote:I suspect it is, but I still do not see the value in making 8 year olds stand up every morning and say this mantra.


Obviously, no one ever shared Red Skelton's monologue with you when you were younger?


I am familiar w/ Red Skelton's monologue and said the pledge growing up, but still question the value of such an act.
0 likes   

User avatar
stormie_skies
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3318
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 9:25 pm
Location: League City, TX

#16 Postby stormie_skies » Tue Jun 15, 2004 12:18 pm

Well, because the suit was dismissed on a technicality, I doubt we will have to wait long before another similar suit makes its way up the legal chain and we have to face this issue all over again...
Makes me wonder why a lower court didn't figure out the custody thing and save everyone the trouble... :x
0 likes   

User avatar
streetsoldier
Retired Staff
Retired Staff
Posts: 9705
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Under the rainbow

#17 Postby streetsoldier » Tue Jun 15, 2004 1:32 pm

More explanation; Newdow's wife was converted WHILE she was married to him...hence the divorce proceedings (remember Ted Turner divorcing Jane Fonda after HER conversion to Christianity? Same BS here).

BTW, there IS no "separation" clause in the Constitution...re-examine it and see for yourselves.
0 likes   

Guest

#18 Postby Guest » Tue Jun 15, 2004 1:45 pm

streetsoldier wrote:More explanation; Newdow's wife was converted WHILE she was married to him...hence the divorce proceedings (remember Ted Turner divorcing Jane Fonda after HER conversion to Christianity? Same BS here).

BTW, there IS no "separation" clause in the Constitution...re-examine it and see for yourselves.


Women didnt have the right to vote in the Constitution either.
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#19 Postby GalvestonDuck » Tue Jun 15, 2004 1:51 pm

zwyts wrote:
streetsoldier wrote:More explanation; Newdow's wife was converted WHILE she was married to him...hence the divorce proceedings (remember Ted Turner divorcing Jane Fonda after HER conversion to Christianity? Same BS here).

BTW, there IS no "separation" clause in the Constitution...re-examine it and see for yourselves.


Women didnt have the right to vote in the Constitution either.


True, until the 19th Amendment was passed. Now we do.

However, there is still NO "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution. That phrase was coined by Thomas Jefferson.
0 likes   

User avatar
streetsoldier
Retired Staff
Retired Staff
Posts: 9705
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Under the rainbow

#20 Postby streetsoldier » Tue Jun 15, 2004 1:58 pm

I didn't merely refer to the ORIGINAL document (inclusive of its "Bill of Rights"), but the Constitution in toto as it stands at this hour, zwyts. :roll:

Liberals always pay attention to the first phrase..."Congress shall pass no law establishing religion"...but they FORGET the second..."nor prohibit the free exercise thereof."

Get it? "FREE EXERCISE THEREOF"...the law was placed there to PROTECT churches FROM the State, NOT the other way around. In essence, zwyts, it means freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it.
0 likes   


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests