Atheist who challenged pledge words 'under God' sues again

  • Thread starter Thread starter JMJ_Pinoy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If I recall correctly from my constitutional law class (that was a long time ago… :whistle:), any child is free to leave a classroom while the pledge is being recited. That’s been the status of the law for decades now as far as I know. Of course, I defer to the active lawyers on the forum who would know better.

Newdow & company are troublemakers. If they are so easily offended by the Pledge of Allegiance, they can simply tell their children to leave the room while it’s being said. This latest development proves that they are not really interested in their children, but in the larger issue of re-engineering society to fit their views. In a way, the pledge itself isn’t the heart of the issue since we all know that it didn’t always have the phrase “under God” in it. Because they don’t believe in God, no one else should have a right to express their belief in God in a public place. What they fail to understand is that the Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion (meaning each person is free to worship or NOT as he or she sees fit), not freedom FROM religion.
 
40.png
stellina:
If I recall correctly from my constitutional law class (that was a long time ago… :whistle:), any child is free to leave a classroom while the pledge is being recited. That’s been the status of the law for decades now as far as I know. Of course, I defer to the active lawyers on the forum who would know better.
Click to expand...
I think the problem was that these plaintiffs believe a stigma attaches to a child who leaves the room and may feel coerced into reciting the objectionable part. Schools are so secular now it’s hard to believe that this would happen–maybe back in the 1950s when I was in grade school. But I guess it can happen. They’ll probably manage to get rid of Under God eventually but they need to find a better plaintiff to do it with, someone who has standing and all that.
 
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Click to expand...
Actually, until 1954, that’s exactly how we recited the pledge in school. When the “under God” was added, we had a difficult time remembering to add it. Most of the children were from Christian homes and adding it did not define us any more or less. A couple just stood quietly with their hands at their sides. Still, it was not an issue.
Of course, at that time, and up until 1963, we also read from the Bible each morning. Everyone participated in that, except in high school, one muslim girl. The jewish kids read from the old testament and the christian kids from the new, usually.
The point being that none of us was in any way changed by these events. We were all accepting of each other as friends and schoolmates. I suppose it was just a different time.
 
40.png
digitonomy:
I wholeheartedly disagree.

First, I very much support tort reform for the usual reasons. However, on fundamental issues of constitutional law, I have no problem with anyone suing to protect his son or daughter from state sponsorship of a religion that he disagrees with. I would have some serious reservations about my kid having to sit through daily recitations of “one nation, under Allah” or “under David Koresh” or whatever. I know, if she doesn’t believe David Koresh is God, she doesn’t have to recite those words.:rolleyes:

Sorry, it smells to me too much like the government supporting a religion. But maybe I’m wrong, and this is an allowable exception that doesn’t really fall under the establishment clause. We won’t know until the courts rule on it. As I recall, SCOTUS didn’t rule that his case had no merit, but simply that he had no standing to bring the case. Now this group should have standing, so we can find out how the merits of the case stack up.

Remember that it was through a lawsuit that the Scouts were spared any further tedious and costly battles over whether they had the right to exclude openly gay members/leaders. That’s the purpose of the courts, to clarify law so that society can go on smoothly with an understanding of where the boundaries are.
Click to expand...
Having “…one nation under God…” is simply an affirmation of the statements made in the Declaration of Independence. This does not constitute state-sponsored religion. If the Fed Govt mandated every school room to have a crucifix on display, then that is state-sponsored religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.
Much thanks to the poster who put the D of I out there for us.

Todd
 
40.png
JMJ_Pinoy:
An atheist who sued because he did not want his young daughter exposed to the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance has filed another lawsuit – this time with other parents.
Click to expand...
Good, Hopefully now the court will rule on this once and for all. Time to put this petty nonsense to rest. I really doubt he is offended or his rights are being violated.
 
If I were a Democratic politico, I would be worried about the 2006 elections, every worried.
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
Well if he wins maybe “us Christians” should pull all of our kids out of school because we are tired of anti-religion being taught to our kids!:mad: What are the atheists going to do then?I would love to see the judges try to put over 80% of all americans in jail for their child being truant:D God Bless
Click to expand...
Two words… Home School!:yup:
 
Lisa N:
I grew up an atheist, reciting the pledge. It had no impact on my belief system and frankly if my experience was similar to most school children, no one EXPLAINED the pledge, what it said, its history, it’s meaning.

Lisa N
Click to expand...
The fact that a child survives without ill effect, or even benefits from, a practice has no effect on whether that practice is constitutional.
40.png
ToddC:
Having “…one nation under God…” is simply an affirmation of the statements made in the Declaration of Independence. This does not constitute state-sponsored religion.
Click to expand...
The Declaration doesn’t have the force of law. In some states, recitation of the Pledge does. Whether it crosses the line into support of religion (pro-monotheism, anti-polytheism, anti-atheism) seems to be an open question.

When “In God we trust” was declared constitutional, the reasoning as I recall was that it was such an old and commonly-used phrase that it had no power of persuasion anymore (I may be way off on my memory of this). That logic seems a bit shaky to me, but it was basically grandfathered in, and the issue is now settled.

On the other hand, the similar “With God, all things are possible” was struck down as Ohio’s motto.

Does a phrase inserted into an older pledge in 1954 fall more into the “In God we trust” category, or is it more similar to the Ohio motto? I suspect the latter, but I don’t know what’s wrong with having the courts decide this issue one way or the other.
 
The “Declaration of Independence” has no bearing in regards to the laws of this nation. It was drafted prior to the Constitution. The DoF was meant for one purpose, to give word to England that we would no longer pay their taxes or fall under their rule.

Now, as for the matter of “Under God”, I simply see this as restoring the Pledge to its original version. That would honor tradition, would it not?
 
Michael C:
Good, Hopefully now the court will rule on this once and for all. Time to put this petty nonsense to rest. I really doubt he is offended or his rights are being violated.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. This is a red herring that is a smokescreen for the advance of secularism in all areas but the privacy of one’s home. There should be other hills to die on.

Lisa N
 
40.png
digitonomy:
The fact that a child survives without ill effect, or even benefits from, a practice has no effect on whether that practice is constitutional…
Click to expand...
True but my point all along is that this is really NOT a serious violation of anyone’s rights. The plaintiff NEVER demonstrated any damage to his or any other child by having “under God” in the pledge. Having grown up in the era of civil rights activism, this hardly merits the same concern as black children being blown up in church.
40.png
digitonomy:
The Declaration doesn’t have the force of law. In some states, recitation of the Pledge does. Whether it crosses the line into support of religion (pro-monotheism, anti-polytheism, anti-atheism) seems to be an open question…
Click to expand...
Dig it’s not SUPPORT it’s ESTABLISHMENT that is the issue. Do you really think the word God establishes A religion? I don’t see how.
40.png
digitonomy:
When “In God we trust” was declared constitutional, the reasoning as I recall was that it was such an old and commonly-used phrase that it had no power of persuasion anymore (I may be way off on my memory of this). That logic seems a bit shaky to me, but it was basically grandfathered in, and the issue is now settled.

On the other hand, the similar “With God, all things are possible” was struck down as Ohio’s motto…
Click to expand...
Not to mention it’s so small on coins and currency that few of us even know it’s there!
40.png
digitonomy:
Does a phrase inserted into an older pledge in 1954 fall more into the “In God we trust” category, or is it more similar to the Ohio motto? I suspect the latter, but I don’t know what’s wrong with having the courts decide this issue one way or the other.
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is anything intrinsically WRONG, just that I think it’s a red herring fabricated by an atheist activist who doesn’t want what he believes is religion anywhere in public life yet apparently wishes to inflict his (IMHO) totally perverted thinking down MY unwilling throat.

Lisa N
 
I have a step mother (and her children as well) who calls her self an atheist. We have spoke about this issue many times. She does not see any “harm” in allowing “under God” in the pledge. She also thinks prayer should be brought back into public schools as well.

While we disagree on religion in general, we agree are a democracy and that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs and that the majority populus in this country is predominantly Christian.

This is one of the many things the ACLU (aka the spawn of satan) needs to stay out and look at history rather than totally mess up our Constitution.
 
Hello And Bless All

Why all the anger with this obvious servant for the Devil.
Be careful not to let his foolish work for Satan cause evil and anger in our hearts. Get behind us Satan!!!
However I have a suggestion . We should file a class action law suit (all Christians) against this slave of Satan for the emotional and mental distress he has caused all peoples of good faith, Imagine that! However has one whom wishes to serve my lord suing isn’t in my Spirtuallity.I know that on the other hand that success is the greatest revenge because your enemies can die from everything under the sun but they can not however live with your success.
So for me only one thing left to do is pray for this man and pray that the lord will come into his heart. By doing this I can serve my lord and give the Devil a little boot in the behind !!!
:rotfl:
 
Saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school is a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. This is true whether the words “under God” are in the Pledge of Allegiance or not.

Saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school, in and of itself, is the establishment of religion. It is the establishment of the religion of Nationalism. Saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school violates totally and completely the principal of separation of church and state.

The very fact that people deny that saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school violates the principal of separation of church and state shows how totally the religion of Nationalism is intertwined with the Federal Government and with their own lives.

Some people may prefer to pledge their allegiance to the Flag. I prefer to pledge my allegiance to Jesus Christ. It is Jesus Christ who has blessed me with everything that I have.
 
Chris Jacobsen:
Saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school is a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. This is true whether the words “under God” are in the Pledge of Allegiance or not.

Saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school, in and of itself, is the establishment of religion. It is the establishment of the religion of Nationalism. Saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school violates totally and completely the principal of separation of church and state.

.
Click to expand...
Chris I wondered about that as well. I know there are some religions that prohibit their members from participating at ALL, much less worrying about two words in the pledge. You are right because you pledge TO the flag. You put your hand over your heart. You stand. You show respect for the flag. You look at the flag while reciting the pledge. Sounds like a religion from the surface.

I think the “under God” objections is hair splitting raised to an art form. If Mr Plaintiff doesn’t want “religion” in public, he ought to require the entire pledge be banned. But that’s not his issue.

Lisa N
 
Lisa N:
Chris I wondered about that as well. I know there are some religions that prohibit their members from participating at ALL, much less worrying about two words in the pledge. You are right because you pledge TO the flag. You put your hand over your heart. You stand. You show respect for the flag. You look at the flag while reciting the pledge. Sounds like a religion from the surface.
Click to expand...
Weelll I just don’t know about that. Is matrimony a “religion”? We pledge to one another, we join hands and take vows, we stand, we make specific promises to one another…I just don’t see the pledge as a religion. I think it is a patiotic expression towards the country which allows us the freedom to have a religion of our own choice. For years of civilization men have pledged themselves to family, to God and to nation. I hardly feels that it is a “religion”.
 
Chris Jacobsen:
Saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school is a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. This is true whether the words “under God” are in the Pledge of Allegiance or not.

Saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school, in and of itself, is the establishment of religion. It is the establishment of the religion of Nationalism. Saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school violates totally and completely the principal of separation of church and state.

The very fact that people deny that saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school violates the principal of separation of church and state shows how totally the religion of Nationalism is intertwined with the Federal Government and with their own lives.

Some people may prefer to pledge their allegiance to the Flag. I prefer to pledge my allegiance to Jesus Christ. It is Jesus Christ who has blessed me with everything that I have.
Click to expand...
Ugh–you want to separate religion from society, which is not the same as separating church and state.
 
Lisa N:
The plaintiff NEVER demonstrated any damage to his or any other child by having “under God” in the pledge. Having grown up in the era of civil rights activism, this hardly merits the same concern as black children being blown up in church.
Click to expand...
I don’t think a tort is claimed, so there is no need to prove damages. It’s an question of whether it’s permitted or not under the constitution. Could be wrong about that, I’m no lawyer. Haven’t heard anyone else compare this to black children being blown up.
Lisa N:
yet apparently wishes to inflict his (IMHO) totally perverted thinking down MY unwilling throat.
Click to expand...
This is the part I don’t get - how is some guy going to the courts, in an effort to protect his right to raise his daughter without religious interference from the government, shoving something down YOUR unwilling throat?
 
40.png
digitonomy:
This is the part I don’t get - how is some guy going to the courts, in an effort to protect his right to raise his daughter without religious interference from the government, shoving something down YOUR unwilling throat?
Click to expand...
You do know he is not the legal guardian of his daughter?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top