posted on March 24, 2004 12:16:42 PM new
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Atheist Michael Newdow sought to convince U.S. Supreme Court justices on Wednesday that schoolchildren reciting "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance amounts to a government-imposed religious exercise.
He argued it violates constitutional church-state separation, winning applause in the courtroom at one point, but several skeptical justices said students can be excused from the recitations or can simply not say the "under God" part.
The justices questioned whether Newdow also objected to singing "God Bless America" in classrooms, to the use of "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency and to "God save the United States and this honorable court" as part of its opening invocation.
Newdow, an emergency room doctor from California who has a law degree and is acting as his own attorney, said the pledge in schools was different, almost like a prayer.
"I am an atheist. I don't believe in God," he said. "My daughter is asked to stand up and say her father is wrong."
The girl's mother, a born-again Christian who supports her saying the pledge, was in the courtroom for the arguments.
Newdow, 50, held his own under a barrage of fast-paced questions. Chief Justice William Rehnquist threatened to clear the courtroom if spectators applauded Newdow a second time.
Rehnquist had asked what the vote was when the U.S. Congress in 1954 added "under God" to the pledge. The law was an effort to distinguish America's religious values and heritage from those of communism, which is atheistic.
NO ATHEIST CAN GET ELECTED TO CONGRESS
Newdow replied the vote was unanimous. Rehnquist said that did not sound divisive to him. "That's only because no atheist can get elected to public office," Newdow answered, triggering the applause, a rare event in the high court.
Rehnquist sternly said, "The courtroom will be cleared if there is any more clapping."
The ruling could be the most important in years involving what role religion can play in schools and public life. The case has sparked a political uproar and generated widespread interest.
Millions of students every day say, "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."
Solicitor General Theodore Olson, the government's chief advocate before the Supreme Court, defended the pledge as a patriotic, not a religious, exercise.
He said the pledge was not a state-sponsored prayer, not a religious ritual and did not involve teaching religious doctrine.
Terence Cassidy, an attorney who represents the local California school district, argued Newdow lacked the legal right to even bring the case because he does not have custody of his daughter.
The court could dismiss the case on that technical point without deciding the merits of the dispute. Newdow argued that having his daughter listen to the pledge causes harm to him and the case therefore could be decided.
During the course of the arguments, several of the justices appeared skeptical of Newdow's overriding argument.
"She does have a right not to participate," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said.
Rehnquist said the pledge "doesn't sound anything like a prayer."
And Justice David Souter asked whether the affirmation of God in the midst of a civic exercise "is so tepid, so diluted, so far from a compulsory prayer that it should in effect be beneath the constitutional radar."
"To say this is not religious is somewhat bizarre," Newdow said. "When I see the flag and think of the Pledge of Allegiance, it's like I'm getting slapped in the face every time."
posted on March 24, 2004 02:28:15 PM new
I'm split on this one.
One the one hand, having God in ANY part of the government seems "legally" wrong, since the country was supposed to be founded on the principles of seperation of church & state.
I do think the founders were mostly Christian, but that doesn't really matter in reality. Seperation of Church and State is a GOOD concept. All you have to do is look at the middle east to see the result of too much religion mixed with the government.
...
But on the other hand, this guy is a real jerk.
The reason Atheists cannot get into Congress is two fold:
1) The majority of Americans are religious. Maybe Christian, maybe not. But most believe SOMETHING.
2) If you believe in -any- God, it's very hard to put your trust or confidence in an atheist. Almost BY DEFINITION their morals are less than yours as a religious person.
It seems the only ones who really get to take advantage of freedom of religion are the atheists any more.
It looks like the Justices are on the side of GOD, but they may rule just the opposite to prove their non-bias.
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on March 24, 2004 02:46:37 PM new
::2) If you believe in -any- God, it's very hard to put your trust or confidence in an atheist. Almost BY DEFINITION their morals are less than yours as a religious person. ::
You mean there are pople taht are actually viewed as having LESS morals than a politician?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 24, 2004 05:30:04 PM new
1) what difference does the religion or lack there of or your doctor make? Do you also hope not to get buddahist doctors? Do you think that your god will ignore you if your doctor does not believe in him?
2) What sporting events do you go to where they say the Pleadge of Alliegence? The only place I have ever heard it recited is at school. Besides which, sporting events are bot state sponsored leaving the legal arguement irrelevant.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 24, 2004 05:30:06 PM new
"I wonder what happens when this doctor..."
He recites it along with everyone else, or at least lip-synchs it. Can you see him raising a stink at a ballgame without his lawyer nearby? They'd lynch him!
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on March 24, 2004 05:33:12 PM new
A sports event wouldn't bother the good doctor, it is not the government proposing the pledge at a sporting event and there are no elements of coercion as there would eb in a public school.
I would rather have an atheist doctor. I have seen more deceit, lies, and immoral behavior from people of "god" than any other group.
But it is interesting how the religious always assume an atheist has no morals.
Atheist as a group probably are more ethical than any other group in America.
If you want to see the worst in people, look at the religious fundementalists.
posted on March 24, 2004 05:38:00 PM newBut it is interesting how the religious always assume an atheist has no morals.
So true. I remember talking to a neighbor a few years ago--I'd done a favor for someone (don't even remember what it was, now), and he said "I can't believe you're so nice." I was a bit startled at that and asked him why. He replied "Well, you're an athiest." I remember feeling a bit stunned that he thought an athiest can't be a nice person!
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on March 25, 2004 06:21:36 AM new
Dr. Newdow's closing statement....
"There's a principle here," he told the justices in his closing moments, "and I'm hoping the court will uphold this principle so that we can finally go back and have every American want to stand up, face the flag, place their hand over their heart and pledge to one nation, indivisible, not divided by religion, with liberty and justice for all."
posted on March 25, 2004 08:13:26 AM new
The mother, Sandra Banning, is a born-again Christian and supporter of the pledge. "I object to his inclusion of our daughter" in the case, she said earlier Wednesday on ABC's "Good Morning America" show. She said she worries that her daughter will be "the child who is remembered as the little girl who changed the Pledge of Allegiance."
posted on March 25, 2004 08:25:52 AM new
I'd like to see the decision be that it's left the way it is. My position is since no one is FORCED to say it....those who do should be allowed to continue doing so.
What do I think the odds of that happening are? Very slim, especially with Rehnquist removing himself.
-----------------
Rehnquist said that did not sound divisive to him. "That's only because no atheist can get elected to public office," Newdow answered.
reamond, question please. IS that in our laws? Or just his opinion because an atheist has never been elected?
------
posted on March 25, 2004 08:44:12 AM new
reamond said: But it is interesting how the religious always assume an atheist has no morals.
Who's said that? I want it clear that I don't fall into that 'broad brush' area you're painting with.
To me an atheist is one who has decided they don't 'buy' the 'belief' there is a God. I have no problem with them making that decision. And I don't hold the position that makes them amoral, etc.
But there are a large group of atheists who actively work at removing the 'religious freedoms' we have long believed in and practiced in this country. As there are those who don't profess to be atheists who also work towards the same goals.
posted on March 25, 2004 09:10:04 AM new
This is another issue where the "majority" are in favor of the Pledge...
I have faith the present court will decide with the majority in this because in effect this person has no basis for his case... this little girl is being used to promote his agenda when I doubt she even thought about it...
Her mother is a god fearing woman and I am sure she gets her bible studies... this man is wrong.
I hope the judges are taking into consideration that the mother is against him.
posted on March 25, 2004 09:49:06 AM new
A majority is of no consequence to a Constitutional question - unless that majority wears robes. A majority may want to do away with freedom of the press, or religious freedom, but a majority of the electorate can not decide the issue.
There is no valid law that requires a beleief in god to be elected, it mentions in the constitution that no religious test can be used to allow for the holding of public office.
Again, this case is not about religious freedom, it is about government imposed religious activities.
If Newdow wins, you can still say "under god", it just won't be allowed as a government function, which is the wise way to go.
Getting the government out of religion means more religious freedom, not less.
posted on March 25, 2004 10:31:52 AM new
You can say what you want Reamond.. I believe if the judges feel they can't reach a decision that will be well received they will decline it on the grounds he has no real case as he does not have custody of his child.
I am not knocking the man for doing what he believes in, however his actions after he loses will be how he is viewed from now on.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
[ edited by Twelvepole on Mar 25, 2004 10:35 AM ]
posted on March 25, 2004 11:19:15 AM new
Thanks reamond....that's what I thought. So...Newdow saying that really isn't true then.
----------------
If Newdow wins, you can still say "under god", it just won't be allowed as a government function...
I disagree and history proves that should this happen children will be forbidden from adding that to the pledge. Just as they now are continually challenged on wearing shirts, crosses etc to school.
The idiot principals and administrators take it beyond what is allowed....meaning it's not allowed. I have no doubt, in the future, we'll be also be seeing cases brought to the courts in regards to children practicing their religious freedoms [by adding Under God] when the say their pledge in schools.
posted on March 25, 2004 11:09:48 PM new
Interesting-I don't know if this is fact but I just heard on a radio talk show that he wasn't even married to the mother of the child.
posted on March 26, 2004 07:24:23 AM new
There is a way to get rid of a Supreme Court Justice. See Below
The Supreme Court is made up of nine Justices. One of these is the Chief Justice. They are appointed by the President and must be approved by the Senate. Justices have their jobs for life, unless they resign, retire, or are impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate (the removal process as described by the Constitution).
I think there is only one Justice that will give trouble and vote for the removal and that is Ginsberg as she use to be with the ACLU. She has a powerful voice and maybe can sway them. I sure hope not.
posted on March 26, 2004 07:54:43 AM newYou can say what you want Reamond.. I believe if the judges feel they can't reach a decision that will be well received they will decline it on the grounds he has no real case as he does not have custody of his child.
The Court has reached many landmark decisions that were not well received. Some decisions needed the National Guard to enforce them.
Standing will not be an issue either, regardless of custody. Being the girls biological father is enough. In fact any parent had better hope that the Court would never reach a decision that a non-custodian biologicaL parent had no standing regarding issues of their children. Any thing else would fly in the face of what is generally considered a fundemental right of family relationship.
posted on March 26, 2004 08:50:30 AM new
Under God.....a very devisive issue and an issue that's pretty easy for most to decided where they stand.... that is except kerry....he appears to have trouble answering a question about where he stands on this subject.
posted on March 26, 2004 09:08:34 AM new
Apparently, Kerry is in favor of leaving the words, "under God" in the pledge. Personally, I am not.
Of God and the Flag
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Published: March 24, 2004
John Kerry said on Boston television in 2002 that the Ninth Circuit ruling holding "under God" in the pledge unconstitutional was "half-assed justice . . . the most absurd thing. . . . That's not the establishment of religion." Michael Dukakis vetoed a Massachusetts bill requiring teachers to lead classes in the pledge and paid dearly for it in his presidential campaign. That bill is now law, as are similar statutes in 42 other states. These laws do not conflict with the High Court's 1943 decision that no student can be penalized for declining to take the pledge.
Agreeing with both Bush and Kerry in support of "under God" are majorities in both houses of Congress and attorneys general of all 50 states. From the liberal National Education Association and American Jewish Congress to the conservative American Legion and the Knights of Columbus (which sponsored this addition 50 years ago), under-God-ers have weighed in with briefs. Opposing are the Atheist Law Center, the A.C.L.U., A.D.L. and assorted iconoclasts.
posted on March 26, 2004 09:21:38 AM new
See helen....that's what I've said about the candidate you support.....never really know FOR SURE where he really stands.
Your article is dated 3-24-04, and taken from a statement kerry made in 2002, but here's a statement that was on yesterday's MSNBC First Read:
Kerry spokeswoman Kathy Roeder said yesterday she did not know whether the candidate had seen the film. She also said Mr. Kerry has not taken a position on whether the Pledge of Allegiance should include the phrase "under God," which is being challenged in the Supreme Court.
edited to add that with all his flip-flopping from his previous positions....this one might just be another.
posted on March 26, 2004 10:01:31 AM new
An issue such as this simply serves to divert attention from more important policy and issues such as the war and the economy.
This and the death penalty, for example are called wedge issues.
posted on March 26, 2004 10:27:13 AM new
helen - His OWN spokesperson said HE HAS NOT TAKEN A POSITION.
That's pretty clear to me that one of two things is ocurring.
Either he is once again not willing to take a current stand on this subject so he doesn't lose votes. Read: NO BACKBONE...no FIRM position on the issue which most people have....
Or he's considering changing his past [2002] position. I'd bet it's the former.
It's a very simple question. But kerry has been avoiding answering a lot of questions lately that people would like to have answers to.
Potential voters like knowing where the candidates stand on culture issues.
