Atheist who challenged pledge words 'under God' sues again

[Digitonomy]

gilliam:

You do know he is not the legal guardian of his daughter?

Yeah, we’ve discussed that. Doesn’t change my question.

 

[gilliam]

digitonomy:

Yeah, we’ve discussed that. Doesn’t change my question.

My view, for what it is worth, is that if you are going to interpret the constitution as having a separation of Church and State and you insist on the government providing education, then you can’t have God in an pledge at that school.

Note, however, I don’t think the constitution has a separation of Church and State, I think that is an invention of the courts that probably should be stricken. If such a restriction is desired, the constitution should be ammended.

 

[Drew98]

Lisa N:

My understanding was that Bush responded to the case, he didn’t initiate it.

Newdow initiated the case and eventually won in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Bush could have said that this is an unimportant issue and that he’s not going to waste government resources trying to get it overturned. But he didn’t. Instead he initiated an appeal to the Supreme Court. So if this is issue is a waste of the court’s time then why not criticize both sides?
Lisa N:

…the mother of the child who wishes to raise the child as a Christian is thus denied HER rights to influence her child in her religious upbringing.

So you’re conceding that “under God” in the pledge has a religious influence on children, right?
Lisa N:

Further parents don’t have rights to know about their child’s abortion. They don’t have the right not to have a homosexual agenda taught in school. Talk about an inconsistent position on your part…

I’ve never told you my position on these issues - perhaps you’re confusing me with someone else.

 

[ToddC]

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.

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 Supreme Court, when deciding cases, has to take into account the original intentions of the Founding Fathers. The D of I helps us determine what their beliefs were and so does the Thanksgiving Address by George Washington. Don’t forget, too, Washington’s farewell address to Congress. To paraphrase, he stated the Constitution forbids the national government from sponsoring a religion under the Establishment Clause, but it does NOT prohibit us from maintaining religious morality as the foundation of our laws. He believed religious values to be the bedrock of society. Without them, society would crumble.
With respect to Ohio’s motto, they used a biblibal quote. Under the Establishment Clause, as originally intended (I believe), the NATIONAL government can not support a religion. It does NOT prohibit states from doing so. Somewhere along the line, the separation of church and state went awry. Now look at our society.

Yours in Christ,

Todd

 

[ToddC]

gilliam:

Note, however, I don’t think the constitution has a separation of Church and State, I think that is an invention of the courts that probably should be stricken. If such a restriction is desired, the constitution should be ammended.

Thomas Jefferson started the whole church and state thing.

 

[gilliam]

ToddC:

Thomas Jefferson started the whole church and state thing.

Actually, he didn’t. He did dash off a note to some Baptist ministers trying to assure them that the government would not prevent them from preaching, but that is all he did.

Don’t blaim it on Jefferson, blaim it on the courts in the present day.

 

[Lisa_N]

digitonomy:

I
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?

Frankly I think (as I have said time and time again) that this has NOTHING to do with the raising of his daughter. That IMO should be between him and his wife. I think he is using this case to attack religion and specifically Christianity. It’s a red herring.

I have asked you several times, how do the words “under God” ESTABLISH A RELIGION??? That was the issue for the founding fathers, that they didn’t want the state to establish a state approved, state supported religion as was the case in some European countries. They clearly did not want the public sphere to be devoid of any reference to God.

The one Jefferson document that referred to separation of church and state was not a formal document that became part of our founding fathers’ legacy. It was a letter written to some Baptist ministers that has been co-opted by the current activist courts.

Lisa N

 

[ToddC]

gilliam:

Actually, he didn’t. He did dash off a note to some Baptist ministers trying to assure them that the government would not prevent them from preaching, but that is all he did.

Don’t blaim it on Jefferson, blaim it on the courts in the present day.

Well, he did write it and others took meanings out of it, including the judges of modern times. But it looks like he did start it albeit unknowingly. Sorry, Gilliam, I am arguing semantics, but I understand your point, though.

Peace!

 

[Lisa_N]

Drew98:

Newdow initiated the case and eventually won in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Bush could have said that this is an unimportant issue and that he’s not going to waste government resources trying to get it overturned. But he didn’t. Instead he initiated an appeal to the Supreme Court. So if this is issue is a waste of the court’s time then why not criticize both sides?.

I think the original case was a waste of time. However the ramifications of not fighting the case has further reaching effects. Thus I do not disagree with fighting the original nutty 9th circuit decision just as I don’t disagree with fighting any other nutty decision that would set a dangerous precedent.

Drew98:

So you’re conceding that “under God” in the pledge has a religious influence on children, right?

No and if you’d read my posts I have made it clear I don’t think the term “under God” ESTABLISHES A RELIGION. I have consistently stated that the upbringing of the child, and her religious training are up to the PARENTS (what a concept!). That the father apparently does not have the same influence over his child as does the mother is a PERSONAL ISSUE and should not be fodder for public discussion or a Supreme Court case.

Drew98:

I’ve never told you my position on these issues - perhaps you’re confusing me with someone else.

No, I am merely pointed out that you need to be consistent. If the father has the right to reach into the schoolgrounds to prevent the supposed propagandizing of his child, then presumably you think that the father should also have rights to know about medical procedures that the school could keep from him.

Lisa N

 

[Brad]

Lisa4Catholics:

That is just another straw.I am talking about what they have already done in public school,school prayer taken out,planned parenthood sex ed, not to mention being tormented if you have an outward religious belief! How do I know I went there! I am homeschooling my older children because of the gang activity in the high schools as well as him being threatened and harrassed for being Christian and Catholic by His English Teacher after he defended Christianity and the Bible are she said it was anti- feminist,when he said my Bible is not ant-feminst and I am Catholic and as far as I know we are the only ones who honor Mary,she replied Catholics are the worst anti-feminist.I complained nothing was done Had we been atheist it would have not only dealt with but an aclu would have rushed in to make it a national headline.God Bless

Sounds like your English teacher committed a hate crime. It’s time to reverse the tide and use the tools provided. Anti-Christian sentiments are as much hate crimes as anything else. It’s time for Christians not to take this garbage any more.

 

[Brad]

Jay74:

It’s about a bigger agenda. They weren’t able to legalize gay “marriage” in Canada until years of chipping away at christianity. God is being pushed more and more out of the public eye, out of schools, out of people’s public lives. Consequently, people are becoming more and more accepting of misbehaviors.

I just heard this morning that a survey taken in Canada revealed only 64% of the people actually believe in God!!! Are you kidding me? My daughter says she gets a “freeze-brain” when she eats ice cream. Apparently, it’s a perpetual thing up north.

 

[Brad]

Jay74:

It’s about a bigger agenda. They weren’t able to legalize gay “marriage” in Canada until years of chipping away at christianity. God is being pushed more and more out of the public eye, out of schools, out of people’s public lives. Consequently, people are becoming more and more accepting of misbehaviors.

I just heard this morning that a survey taken in Canada revealed only 64% of the people actually believe in God!!! Are you kidding me? My daughter says she gets a “freeze-brain” when she eats ice cream. Apparently, it’s a perpetual thing up north.

 

[Brad]

Drew98:

If Newdow wins here is how the pledge would be recited by schoolchildren:

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.

---

I would be interested in hearing you explain how the above could be perceived as “anti-religious” by those children.

You’re right. We should take out “under God” and everything else pertaining to God in any way, shape, or form from the public schools. This included money - which has the words “In God We Trust” on it. Try to run the school without just taking everyone’s money at will and then you can run it the way you want - but until then - the people decide.

 

[Brad]

Drew98:

Actually, the case was about Newdow’s right as a parent to not have a government employee tell his daughter every day that her father is wrong about God.

He is wrong. If he doesn’t like it, he can send his daughter to an atheist school. I don’t like a lot of things in the public schools so I pay extra to send my kids to a Christian school. He can send her to an atheist school or homeschool.

But, you are right. You hit on the root of the problem - it is pride. This father has no custody and next to zero influence on his daughter and he doesn’t like that. Sorry - it’s not the public’s problem - it’s his.

 

[Brad]

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.

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.

Government has every right to support the notion of God - that is not unconstitutional. Further, this country was founded by Christians - that is history. I’d be offended by “One Nation under allah” because it is NOT true. We were founded “One Nation Under God”. That is the truth. We support that truth as a nation. And we even allow those that do not believe in God to opt out of making this statement - and we still educated them for zero dollars out of their pocket.

Newdow can be an atheist. That is his choice. But he cannot change history nor the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence to make this country what he wishes it to be. If he thinks atheism is so great, then convince us of its truths rather than try to force the views of atheism on the rest of us.

 

[Brad]

catsrus:

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.

“Under God” was put in as a response to Communism. Those that want to take it out, well - draw your conclusions. I for one don’t want Communism. It is a failed ideology and form of government and at it’s root, it is anti-God.

Once God is taken out of everything public, what is to stop someone who is anti-God if instilling creeds against God. We certainly couldn’t stop that person on the ground of religion could we?

The time to stand up against these people is now - their ideology is wrong and have been proven an utter failure and it has no business affecting our country’s policies.

 

[Brad]

gilliam:

If I were a Democratic politico, I would be worried about the 2006 elections, every worried.

No kidding. This combined with the eleciton objection fiasco - these people just don’t have a clue.

 

[Brad]

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.

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.

Show me in the constitution what is law that prevents the pledge from being said as currently written. Has the constitution been ammended since 1954 or did the politicians just trample over the constitution when “under God” was added?

 

[Brad]

Mac6yver:

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?

The Declaration of Independence most certainly does have bearing in regards to the laws of this nation. It is called “strict constructionalism”. This is where you go back to “original intent” behind the laws, so that when you read them, you cannot just read INTO them whatever you want (which is what has been done the past 50 years or so).

Adding “under God” was not a consitituional violation in 1954 and it still is not as the original intent of the founders was to create a society based on the divine law of God.

 

[Brad]

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.

Nope.

1. There is no separation of Church and State anywhere in our laws or constitution.
2. Nationalism is not a religion. You are talking about separation of State and State, which doesn’t make any sense at all.