Pledge Update - Breaking News
- Thread starter Keith_Yorktown
- Start date
- Status
ojibweindian
New member
They're really acknowledging the fact that most of the country is seriously pissed at them.
It's pretty common for courts to stay a decision when an appeal is certain. Don't read too much into that.
It will be interesting to see what happens. If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, the Ninth Circuit appelate decision stands, but is in effect in only the Ninth Circuit. If the SCotUS takes the case and renders a decision, there are several possibilities. They could narrowly rule that a public school teacher cannot pledge we are "one nation, under God", as that is an affirmation of religion by a government authority figure to a captive audience of children. Such a narrow ruling would not effect other uses of religious phrases, such as the "so help me God" in oaths of office. Or, they could make a wider ruling that all such religious pronoumcements by government officials are unconstitutional, which would result in sweeping changes, the elimination of religious text from all government speech and documents. That could even force a change in the national motto, and require it's removal from currency and coins. Such a wide ruling is unlikely. The other option is that they could rule the "under God" phrase in the Pledge is just tradition, which could open the door to mre religious speech in government affairs.
My guess is that they will take the case, and rule narrowly against the "under God" phrase in public schools. We'll see.
It will be interesting to see what happens. If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, the Ninth Circuit appelate decision stands, but is in effect in only the Ninth Circuit. If the SCotUS takes the case and renders a decision, there are several possibilities. They could narrowly rule that a public school teacher cannot pledge we are "one nation, under God", as that is an affirmation of religion by a government authority figure to a captive audience of children. Such a narrow ruling would not effect other uses of religious phrases, such as the "so help me God" in oaths of office. Or, they could make a wider ruling that all such religious pronoumcements by government officials are unconstitutional, which would result in sweeping changes, the elimination of religious text from all government speech and documents. That could even force a change in the national motto, and require it's removal from currency and coins. Such a wide ruling is unlikely. The other option is that they could rule the "under God" phrase in the Pledge is just tradition, which could open the door to mre religious speech in government affairs.
My guess is that they will take the case, and rule narrowly against the "under God" phrase in public schools. We'll see.
Scott Conklin
New member
Keep in mind that the 9th Circuit has something like a 90% reversal rate. The odds are this decision will be reversed and the SCOTUS will rule it "traditional". In other words, they aren't goign to want to touch this thing anymore than anyone else. It's the sort of hot potato that brings out Conservatives in droves and gets Dems politically slaughtered, especially on the local level even when they have had no input or responsibility on the issue. That they realize this was obvious in Little Tommy Daschles reaction today.
Mike in VA
New member
I don't get it. The SCOTUS comes out and says that a sea change in public opinion has caused it to rethink its position on the death penalty for retarded criminals, then this weenie says that "under God" is unConstitutional???
Seems to me that the number of people practicing some sort of religion has been on the upswing for the last ten years or so, and big time since 9/11. So we should remove a generic reference to a Supreme Being to appease a small number of atheists?? I think we have seen a pretty visceral displayof Public Opinion here, Mr Goodwin . . .
The First Amendment says that Gov't shall establish no religion, and I fail to see how simply acknowlaging a commonly held belief in a Supreme Being (by both the Founding Fathers and the current populace) comes anywhere close.
I suspect that Judge Goodwin has only just realized that the dull pain he is feeling in his nether region is his foot planted firmly on his judicial member, and his name will be appearing on better bathroom wall everywherre. What a maroon.
Seems to me that the number of people practicing some sort of religion has been on the upswing for the last ten years or so, and big time since 9/11. So we should remove a generic reference to a Supreme Being to appease a small number of atheists?? I think we have seen a pretty visceral displayof Public Opinion here, Mr Goodwin . . .
The First Amendment says that Gov't shall establish no religion, and I fail to see how simply acknowlaging a commonly held belief in a Supreme Being (by both the Founding Fathers and the current populace) comes anywhere close.
I suspect that Judge Goodwin has only just realized that the dull pain he is feeling in his nether region is his foot planted firmly on his judicial member, and his name will be appearing on better bathroom wall everywherre. What a maroon.
To Mike in VA;
It seems like the whole lawsuit was a strawman to begin with, since the daughter admitted she had no issue with the PoA, but that her father used her name as a vehicle to create a lawsuit that ultimately served little other purpose than to make a name for himself.
I think this decision will be struck down because of the plethora of similar lawsuits that will be started against everything from political speeches to currency to the Declaration of Independence. I can however see a ruling made that its unconstitutional to compel someone to utter the PoA, or even the part "under God".
Also, the belief of rights being endowed by a 'superior being' was how the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent the establishment of government where it was rights endowed by man and rule by decree. Their experiences with King George taught them this was not the way to go.
It seems like the whole lawsuit was a strawman to begin with, since the daughter admitted she had no issue with the PoA, but that her father used her name as a vehicle to create a lawsuit that ultimately served little other purpose than to make a name for himself.
I think this decision will be struck down because of the plethora of similar lawsuits that will be started against everything from political speeches to currency to the Declaration of Independence. I can however see a ruling made that its unconstitutional to compel someone to utter the PoA, or even the part "under God".
Also, the belief of rights being endowed by a 'superior being' was how the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent the establishment of government where it was rights endowed by man and rule by decree. Their experiences with King George taught them this was not the way to go.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Kida,
The daughter is/was in second grade, a minor child.
The father brought the lawsuit on behalf of his daughter, more or less contending that the Pledge was interfering with the way he wanted to raise his daughter.
I'm pretty certain that Brown vs. Board of Education was brought in exactly the same manner.
What really gets me about the entire religion in schools debate, all the way back to Madeline Murray O'Hare (Hair?), is that the courts have moved AWAY from the wording of the Constitution.
The Constitution addresses a state sponsored, established religion -- in England it was the Church of England, with the King as the head of the church.
Prayer in schools, mentioning God in the pledge, is NOT the state "establishing" a single religion for all of its members.
The nebulous term God encompasses virtually EVERY religion, as virtually every religion has a supreme entity of some sort. I've seen it argued, with quite some merit, that even atheists have a "supreme diety" -- themselves.
The daughter is/was in second grade, a minor child.
The father brought the lawsuit on behalf of his daughter, more or less contending that the Pledge was interfering with the way he wanted to raise his daughter.
I'm pretty certain that Brown vs. Board of Education was brought in exactly the same manner.
What really gets me about the entire religion in schools debate, all the way back to Madeline Murray O'Hare (Hair?), is that the courts have moved AWAY from the wording of the Constitution.
The Constitution addresses a state sponsored, established religion -- in England it was the Church of England, with the King as the head of the church.
Prayer in schools, mentioning God in the pledge, is NOT the state "establishing" a single religion for all of its members.
The nebulous term God encompasses virtually EVERY religion, as virtually every religion has a supreme entity of some sort. I've seen it argued, with quite some merit, that even atheists have a "supreme diety" -- themselves.
DadOfThree
New member
According to Bill O Reilly, the father filed a suit in FL a few years ago trying to get "In God we trust" off of our money. It was thrown out. He then filed a suit to have Bush's inauguration declared null and void if Bush finished his oath with "so help me God". That suit was also thrown out. He finally found a judge who thinks like him in San Francisco. I don't have a link for this but it was on the O Reilly factor radio show Thursday night. It's guys like this that keep laywers in business.
nascarnhlnra
New member
I heard that same thing Dadofthree about past suits in FL that were thrown out after he moved to CA guess he figured his chances in CA were better than in FL.:barf:
Mike Irwin
Staff
There's a jackass in St. Louis (I think) who has been filing suits for the past couple of years trying to get Christmas banned as a Federal holiday.
Says it violates separation of church/state, etc., disrespectes non Christians, etc.
Funny that last year two of my coworkers were looking forward to Christmas more than was I -- one's Jewish, the other is Islamic. Go figure...
Says it violates separation of church/state, etc., disrespectes non Christians, etc.
Funny that last year two of my coworkers were looking forward to Christmas more than was I -- one's Jewish, the other is Islamic. Go figure...
Apple a Day
New member
Mike,
In the schools around here, at least, it ain't "Christmas Break" and hasn't been for a while now. It's officialy "Winter Break".
In the schools around here, at least, it ain't "Christmas Break" and hasn't been for a while now. It's officialy "Winter Break".
Just to clarify, here is the legal issue. In a public school, the teacher is a goverment employee, and thus legally considered the voice of the government in the classroom. When the teacher, a government authority figure, stands up and solomnly pledges that we are "one nation, under God", that teacher is defacto saying that God exists and has dominion over our nation. The teacher is saying this to a captive audience of impressionable schoolkids, whether the parents like it or not. There is no mystery which God the Congress inserted into the Pledge in 1954, it was the biblical Judeo-Xn God and none other. This is government religious indoctrination of children. It's not just the Pledge itself, or even just the "under God" phrase itself, it's the fact that it's stated by a government authority figure to kids who have no choice but to listen, and even their parents have no say in the matter. And there's the rub.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
Just to clarify, here is my perspective:
In the United States, the President is a goverment employee, and thus legally considered the voice of the government. When the President, a government authority figure, stands up and solomnly states:
------------------------------
Obviously, my opinion is that anyone can mention their beliefs in the course of their work. Certain people carry more influence than others; that's just the way life is. If a father can't influence his daughter enough to outweigh whatever she may hear at school, or see at the mall, he's not much of a father. If my daughter had to hear, "One nation, under no God..." everyday during the pledge, it would anger me, but I wouldn't worry that she would abandon all that I have taught her to the contrary.
In the United States, the President is a goverment employee, and thus legally considered the voice of the government. When the President, a government authority figure, stands up and solomnly states:
That President is defacto saying that God exists and has power over our nation. The President is saying this to a captive audience of impressionable Americans, whether they like it or not. It's not just the mention of God, it's the fact that it's stated by a government authority figure to Americans who have no choice but to listen.
------------------------------
Obviously, my opinion is that anyone can mention their beliefs in the course of their work. Certain people carry more influence than others; that's just the way life is. If a father can't influence his daughter enough to outweigh whatever she may hear at school, or see at the mall, he's not much of a father. If my daughter had to hear, "One nation, under no God..." everyday during the pledge, it would anger me, but I wouldn't worry that she would abandon all that I have taught her to the contrary.
About the only area in the 9th District where this judgement could have been received as "popular" is a small coastal strip from Malibu to San Fran...I recommend to the atheist that he be concerned regarding the opinions of the remainder of the district's residents..The ol' boys in Montana, Nevada, and Idaho...
This concern may have dawned on the judge as well...
This concern may have dawned on the judge as well...
CMichael,
It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an estavlishment of religion". The word "particular" is nowhere in the amendment.
Here it is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now, where does it say "Congress shouldn't establish a particular religion"?
Suppose 9 out of 10 people wanted to take your guns away, would that be right?
It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an estavlishment of religion". The word "particular" is nowhere in the amendment.
Here it is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now, where does it say "Congress shouldn't establish a particular religion"?
Suppose 9 out of 10 people wanted to take your guns away, would that be right?
- Status