SCOTUS Pledge of Allegance Case (merged)

[Mahan Atma]

Interesting development in this case:

I invited Newdow to come speak at our law school about his case. Since he's going to be arguing the case himself in the Supreme Court, he asked about the possibility of putting together a moot court session so that he can practice his oral argument.

We're going to oblige him, so I'm putting together the court now. Unfortunately there's a decent chance the case would come back to the Ninth Circuit on remand, so I can't line up any of the federal judges from around here. But I've already got one of the leading scholars on Establishment Clause jurisprudence (who's also friends with several of the real justices) lined up to be a justice, so it should be good.

 

[Infernal]

Court dismisses Pledge case

Atheist father cannot sue over use of 'Under God'
Monday, June 14, 2004 Posted: 11:23 AM EDT (1523 GMT)

Skeptical court hears father's arguments in Pledge case

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.

Link here.

Sorry, copy and paste from CNN is a nightmare. Any thoughts?

 

[DigitalDuality]

For some reason that article makes me feel like "athiest" is a dirty word. Maybe it's the relief express in the two words "at least". Like there's something worth saving in the eyes of government.

MA would probably have greater insight than I, but I see this as a failure. Regardless of what is codified that allows phrases such as "under God" or "in God we trust" to exist on national currency and led government led prayer..I cannot stand the idea of some special interest group being unfairly represented by an institution that i pay taxes to. Taxation for someone else's representation...

 

[SoHiAllTheTime]

The kid is NOT forced to say the pledge! Plus, people dont know that that child actually led her school in the pledge over the intercom in her support of saying "under God". It is not her that protests saying but her father. This should be tossed out of the courts immediately. If it were a child complianing that they are being forced to say the pledge then i say lets dicsuss it, but this was an ethiest attacking religion. nothing more.

I am very very happy about this!

 

[DigitalDuality]

^
If schools, say.. did something, anything, where a teacher was to "preach" that there is no such thing as god, and that such thought is absurd and an impossibility, would you agree with that?

It's the same thing. (not really refering to the case in particular..)

 

[Syberduh]

I don't think they ever resolved the issue that the father still doesn't technically have standing to sue.

 

[Enlitx]

Did anyone actually expect the court to rule on this? I am sure the justices just wanted to avoid getting involved in the whole messy situation. I don't see why people don't acknowledge that having "under god" in the pledge is WRONG. It is reference to a higher being and therefore it establishes the idea that this country acknowledges a higher being. Sorry, but we don't. What really pisses me off is how christians will come up and say "religion is such a private and personal experience", yet they act as if removing it from public statements is some kind of violation! And then they use the excuse of "its a ceremonial thing", yet it was added in the 50's. Not much tradition there. Why can't people realize it was added for the wrong reasons, it is still there for the wrong reasons, and it needs to be removed for the RIGHT reasons. Jesus fucking christ.

 

[Harry@Piekarnia]

If the country is under god then why don't all the citizens have the right to have their mutually agreed union recognised under god if they so choose?

 

[SoHiAllTheTime]

Ok, first we hear from libs that just because it happened in the past doesnt mean it is right. now, we hear that because the under god wasnt part of the long ago past and was added later it has no traditon (suddenly libs are big on tradition) and is against the constitution.

So which is it? Tradition is good or bad? Are new things and new ideas are always right and we are smarter than those of the past 8) ? Or does tradition suddenly carry weight in an argument? Lets set the rules and play by them in all debates ok?

 

[Enlitx]

Ok, first we hear from libs that just because it happened in the past doesnt mean it is right. now, we hear that because the under god wasnt part of the long ago past and was added later it has no traditon (suddenly libs are big on tradition) and is against the constitution.

So which is it? Tradition is good or bad? Are new things and new ideas are always right and we are smarter than those of the past 8) ? Or does tradition suddenly carry weight in an argument? Lets set the rules and play by them in all debates ok?

Hahah, so now the WHOLE vantage point of liberals is that it isn't a long enough tradition, because of ONE statement I made? I was making that comment in RESPONSE to the idea that it is somehow tradition, while still FULLY disagreeing with the idea that tradition has any weight whatsoever. Tell me, how can the pledge of our country include the reference to god and still be impartial? This is a CLEAR violation and it needs to be removed.

 

[SoHiAllTheTime]

Doesnt name a specific god. "god" is a universal term. If it said Jesus i would understand your point. Fact is this country has always followed the code of God first-country second. Open your eyes, it is everywhere.

 

[Enlitx]

Doesnt name a specific god. "god" is a universal term. If it said Jesus i would understand your point. Fact is this country has always followed the code of God first-country second. Open your eyes, it is everywhere.

Whoa, getting a little too southern-right wing in here. God still excludes atheists, and it sets up establishment of religion. Look in our constitution, tell me where you see the word god, oh wait, it IS NOT THERE. You might want to research our founding fathers if you think they all were god first-country second. Try www.infidels.org and do some research.

 

[alasdairm]

Originally posted by SoHiAllTheTime
Doesnt name a specific god. "god" is a universal term.

not if you don't believe in (any) god.

alasdair

 

[allan51]

I don't see what the big deal is. Take the phrase out and remove it from currency... everyone is happy

if certain groups complain, then they obviously feel the government should endorse their religion, which we all know is a no-no

 

[Enlitx]

I don't see what the big deal is. Take the phrase out and remove it from currency... everyone is happy

if certain groups complain, then they obviously feel the government should endorse their religion, which we all know is a no-no

Then you get into their last strong-hold, which is that it is a "tradition", but yah, what you said is correct.

 

[SoHiAllTheTime]

^True. but if you dont believe in any god why would you even care? Why ruin it for the vast majority of others who do believe in god by having it removed? Why cant some people just let thing go and fight the bigger fights? With no belief in god you should be able to laugh off the whole under god thing and not even worry about it. Skip over the words. Whatever. It shouldnt matter.

Enlitx: I have personally taken part in way too many debates on this site to debate it with you, no offense at all, it is just a beaten horse. Plus "infidels.org"? Yeah, that sounds like a real winner of a website. 8)

 

[Pander Bear]

I'm inclined to side with the court due to the fact that Daddy had no standing whatsoever. On top of that, I'm a fan of judicial restraint. I wish they'd use it more oftn, and not just when the case is dificult.

 

[Pander Bear]

Whoa, getting a little too southern-right wing in here. God still excludes atheists, and it sets up establishment of religion. Look in our constitution, tell me where you see the word god, oh wait, it IS NOT THERE. You might want to research our founding fathers if you think they all were god first-country second. Try www.infidels.org and do some research.

the constitution says "the establishment of religion" not "an establishment of religion". There's no "first church of the American pan-religious god".

 

[Enlitx]

the constitution says "the establishment of religion" not "an establishment of religion". There's no "first church of the American pan-religious god".

Whether it applies to a specific religion or not, God still denotes religion. Referring to god is still too specific in that it alienates atheists who are just as much a part of this country as others.

 

[Enlitx]

^True. but if you dont believe in any god why would you even care? Why ruin it for the vast majority of others who do believe in god by having it removed? Why cant some people just let thing go and fight the bigger fights? With no belief in god you should be able to laugh off the whole under god thing and not even worry about it. Skip over the words. Whatever. It shouldnt matter.

Enlitx: I have personally taken part in way too many debates on this site to debate it with you, no offense at all, it is just a beaten horse. Plus "infidels.org"? Yeah, that sounds like a real winner of a website. 8)

This isn't about who would have the easier transition, it is about what is right. Are you saying that it was ok for England to persecute religious groups because the vast majority were a certain one? Isn't that part of the reason many early settlers fled in the FIRST place? We shouldn't bend our constitution for people like you, just so you can be comfortable. Also, I find it humurous you question the credibility of infidels.org when it is frequented by many college professors and very intelligent people. The name is a sarcastic reference to the label given to people who don't believe in god 8) .