Pledge ruled unconstitutional
http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=102554
By Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words ``under God'' was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation ``under God'' violates school children's right to be ``free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.''
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of. Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.
Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts, where the plaintiffs' children attend.
The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools, at a time when the makeup of the Supreme Court is in flux.
Wednesday's ruling comes as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts faces day three of his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice.
Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down unexpectedly from the Supreme Court in July.
The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.
``It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made,'' said fund attorney Jared Leland. Newdow, reached at his home, was not immediately prepared to comment.
Thoughts?
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.
The original pledge was:
'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'
The words meant nothing to me, they were just something to be memorized. Like my spelling list, or arithmatic tables.
Seeing how Catherine will marry a rich and powerful King of a small but relatively friendly country and be their reigning 'evita' type queen - saying the pledge every morning is a mere stepping stone until she gathers her ultimate world dominating power.
I mean, when she finishes college. /cough
Excepting of course that if she has pledged allegiance to the US, then reigning another country would be a conflict of interest ;)
:rofl
I hated signing "God Save the Queen" and "Oh Canada" once a week in elementary school. I can't imagine singing a nationalism song each and every morning.
Not really a song. And actually I think it is a good thing to have children to do. It helps reinforce the concept that they are part of a larger community and that they should be proud of the country where they live.
I find it a little bit sad as the years go by that people don't have that nowadays. To live in a place that you can't feel proud of is a sad state of existance.
I know that these are not the reasons that atheists would like God to be removed from schools and secular things...but those are my reasons. I just don't believe that schools should be given the authority to teach my children their personal viewpoints of either religion or politics, especially since it is always slanted towards whichever country the school happens to be located in. All I'm saying is if anyone is going to influence and tinker about with my child's mind, planting viewpoints in it so early that they'll stick for any length of time, it should be me.
What is unfortunate is that many parents are so negligent with their children that it sometimes requires going to school for them to learn anything about what's going on in the world and so the ONLY viewpoint they get is the one that the school is shovelling down their throats. If the people who were kicking up such a fuss about all of this stuff spent more time educating their children themselves, it would mostly be a non issue. Seems to me that most of these people are using their children to push their own political agendas. As Rikr says, their children don't HAVE to say it. Nobody is going to shoot them for not pledging allegiance if they go to their teacher and explain their reasons why not. I'm fairly certain this is still a free country...
"under Allah"
"under buddah"
"under atum"
"under brahma"
"under my own self righteousness because i am an idiot who thinks the greatness of everything that is and ever will be was created from a kaboom"
see how well that works out? I have found the answer.
And I am also fine with people saying the Pledge of Allegience in school, daily. I remember when I was in middle school we stopped saying it and had a "moment of silence" because of all the political bullshit. If you can't say the Pledge of Allegience than get the fuck out of my country.
So while I will be able to teach Catherine a great deal I accept that fact that the way I know how to teach certain things and impart my knowledge/wisdom about the world is not going to be the way she will be able to understand it.
As far as the pledge, yes you damn would should pledge allegiance to the this country. In effect by being in this country you have already pledge allegiance to it. If you commit a treasonous act you will get punished, plain and simple.
Too often I hear about how everyone in our country has the right to their own opinion. Well here is mine. No you don't, some opinions are plain wrong, they fly in the face of common sense. In effect by choosing to live here is like choosing to live in your parents house. You live by their rules, you respect them, and you take up in defense of it and their ideals if need be.
If you're born to two people who happen to be citizens of a particular country, did you choose to live there as a child?
Using the same logic, just because I was born to two people of one ethnicity, does that mean I chose to be that particular ethinic group?
"I pledge allegiance"
...I promise to be true
"to the flag"
...to the symbol of our country
"of the United States of America"
...each state that has joined to make our country
"and to the Republic"
...a republic is a country where the people choose others to
make laws for them. The government is for the people
"for which it stands,"
...the flag means the country
"one Nation"
...a single country
"under God"
...the people believe in a supreme being
"indivisible,"
...the country cannot be split into parts
"with liberty and justice"
...with freedom and fairness
"for all."
...for each person in the country...you and me
I don't see anything in there about this country being the only country that is blessed by God. What I do see is a promise to remain faithful to our flag and what it represents to us as a nation. I thought it was stupid that we had to stop saying the pledge in school because people found it offensive.
Part of being a citizen of the United States is being true to our country. I don't think that is an unreasonable request. I am thankful that I live here, there is no other country I'd rather be in.
Using the same logic, just because I was born to two people of one ethnicity, does that mean I chose to be that particular ethinic group?
I fail to see how that pertains to this discussion or your previous argument.