Pledge Of Allegiance Heads Back To Court

(AP)  An atheist seeking to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and U.S. currency is taking his arguments back to a federal appeals court.

Michael Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, sued the Elk Grove Unified School District in 2000 for forcing public school children to recite the pledge, saying it was unconstitutional.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Newdow's favor in 2002, but two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Newdow lacked standing to sue because he didn't have custody of the daughter on whose behalf he brought the case. He immediately filed a second lawsuit on behalf of three unidentified parents and their children.

In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento found in favor of Newdow, ruling the pledge was unconstitutional because its reference to "one nation under God" violates children's rights to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." The judge said he was following the precedent set by the 9th Circuit Court's ruling in Newdow's first case.

A three-judge panel from that court was to hear arguments in the case on Tuesday. The same panel also was to hear arguments in Newdow's case against the national motto, "In God We Trust."

In 2005, Newdow sued Congress and several federal officials, arguing that making money with the motto on it violated the First Amendment clause requiring the separation of church and state.

Last year, a federal judge in Sacramento disagreed, saying the words did not violate Newdow's atheism. Newdow appealed.

Congress first authorized a reference to God on a two-cent piece in 1864. In 1955, the year after lawmakers added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress passed a law requiring all U.S. currency to carry the motto "In God We Trust."

[jon2012-2009]

Ok, since atheism is not a "religion", then they should have no say? If aethism is a "religion" would that be favoring one over the other?
Posted by Klingon69 at 12:35 PM : Dec 05, 2007

Atheism is probably not a religion. There is no concept of heaven and hell, no afterlife, no pretty virgin-looking angels, no sin, no need for salvation. No need to build churches or to ask for donations so religious leaders like Robertson can live in style.

But whether atheism is a religion or not is beside the point. What is at issue is the principle of separation of church and state. Removing references to God from the pledge and U.S. currency does not favor atheism. If pledge and our currency were silent on the question of God, would a reasonable person assume that there is a message being waved in your face. And if so, what might the message be? That there is no God in the universe? Isn''t that a little too specific, a little to sweeping perhaps? Why not "there is no tooth fairy?" And why not simply "there is no message."

[mudrose-2009]

"Fancy Nancy try the Declaration. Fancy Nancy the Righteous ***. Smug, stupid and morally inferior."

~~~~~

And long before the need arise for me to kill a Muslim in defense of my Librety, I will have to kill a Christian.

Regards,

Posted by Nancy_Naive

Fancy Nancy, Smug, Stupid and Morally Inferior.

[mudrose-2009]

That really came in handy at Waco. We let you own guns so you''''''''ll kill each other.

Regards,
Posted by Nancy_Naive at 10:50 AM : Dec 05, 2007
Yeah, it is difficult to fight a running battle with the US military and various government agencies. Oh, but wasn''''t that a violation of the POSSE COMOTATUS ACT?
Posted by Klingon69

Reno, like her boss the Clintoid did and still do not understand the laws of the land. Like the secular progressives, they like to think the Constitution and statutes are to be interpreted as they see fit, not as they were intended. Gun Control and the Second Amendment have nothing to do with Waco.

[klingon69]

That really came in handy at Waco. We let you own guns so you''''ll kill each other.

Regards,
Posted by Nancy_Naive at 10:50 AM : Dec 05, 2007
Yeah, it is difficult to fight a running battle with the US military and various government agencies. Oh, but wasn''t that a violation of the POSSE COMOTATUS ACT?

[mudrose-2009]

Let''''''''s also ask this question: Why are some people afraid of the separation of church and state? It is in the Constitution, after all. Don''''''''t we all love the Constitution?
Posted by jon2012 at 04:35 PM : Dec 04, 2007
Where exactly in the constitution does it say "seperation of church and state"?
It says that congress can''''t make a law that establishes a religion, or forbid the free exercise thereof.

Posted by Klingon69

It''s a figment of the ACLU''s imagination. There is no separation of Church and State in the Constitution. Perhpas it''s the Russian Constitution that you''re referring to? It is cited in theirs.

[mudrose-2009]

"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.

"The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading ''The Organic Laws of the United States of America'' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution ''shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.'' (Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 360-361)

Fancy Nancy try the Declaration. Fancy Nancy the Righteous ***. Smug, stupid and morally inferior.

[klingon69]

rohink, you''''re thinking too literally. The wall of separation between church and state refers to the part of the Constitution that says government will be neutral with regards to religion, not getting entangled with it, not favoring one religion over another. I think the origins of the phrase go back to Jefferson.
Posted by jon2012 at 04:57 PM : Dec 04, 2007
Ok, since atheism is not a "religion", then they should have no say? If aethism is a "religion" would that be favoring one over the other?

[klingon69]

Let''''s also ask this question: Why are some people afraid of the separation of church and state? It is in the Constitution, after all. Don''''t we all love the Constitution?
Posted by jon2012 at 04:35 PM : Dec 04, 2007
Where exactly in the constitution does it say "seperation of church and state"?
It says that congress can''t make a law that establishes a religion, or forbid the free exercise thereof.

[klingon69]

The truth is that ''''under god'''' was not in the original pledge. It was added in 1954.
Posted by jh6379 at 04:31 PM : Dec 04, 2007
The term gold and silver certificates also used to grace our money. Portraits on the money have changed, appearance has changed. Is this all part of the NAU? Most money I have seen throughout the world looked very different from ours before, not so much now.

[klingon69]

Yet only 40% of AMericans go to church on a regular basis. Sorry muddie, but you once again have proven yourself to be a Fascist OXymoron, plagerizing every post from the Fascist OXymoron Network of Nazi Loving Southerners, brought to US by Rudy Giuliani.
Posted by neoconism at 04:30 PM : Dec 04, 2007
And you still can''t tell the difference between Christianity and Religion. Many have left the churches because of pulpit politics, seen those they trusted fall astray & been let down by the guides placed here for spiritual guidance. That doesn''t mean that they are not Christians. In the true sense they are, because they are removing sin from their sight.