"Under God" in the courts
The words “Under God” is in the courts again. This all started when Michael Newdow, a physician and atheist, sued the Sacramento County, California, school district his daughter attended, claiming public recitation by students violates the 10-year-old child's religious liberty. While legal precedent makes reciting the pledge a voluntary act, Newdow says it becomes unconstitutional for students to be forced to hear it, arguing the teacher-led recitations carry the stamp of government approval.
To spruce things up Justice Antonin Scalia, recused himself from the case at Newdow’s request. At a Religious Freedom Day rally in January 2003, the conservative Scalia reportedly said any changes to the pledge should be done "democratically," through the legislatures, not the courts. He also reportedly said removing references to God from public forums would be "contrary to our whole tradition."
That leaves the potential for a contentious 4-4 split among the remaining justices when it comes time to issue a ruling. A tie vote would mean the pledge would be banned in schools in the 9th Circuit, and potentially could apply to all public schools in the United States.
A ruling in the case is expected by early July.
This has come at a very sensitive time for this country. If they rule the phrase unconstitutional it will create an enormous public reaction I’m anxious to see. This with the hopeful democratic majority in November will create quiet an impact from the average religious right American.
CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/24/scotus.pledge/index.html
Related Posting: Religious Oppression Continues
8 Comments:
This comment is for all those learned folks declaring the that words "under God" in the pledge do not constitute a prayer since they are so 'generic' and do not constitute a problem since no one is 'forced' to say them. You're wrong. I use myself as an example. In my youth I was an athiest (but after reading quite a lot of Heinlein, I realized that I had no more proof than the zealots on the other side of the fence, and am now happily agnostic). My dad was in the Air Force, so I went to schools on bases for most of my youth, we recited the pledge daily (the Knights of Columbus vandalized version with the words 'under God' included). I recited the pledge as well, falling silent for those two words, then resuming. And yet, every school day of my youth for six years, I dreaded that moment of self-imposed silence, feeling pressured and ostricized. If you don't believe that is possible, try this little experiment, go to your child's school and convince them to use a different version of the pledge for the coming year, substituting Buddah, Allah or L. Ron Hubbard (or hey, if you're feeling really confident in your position, how about Satan?) for 'God.' Then at the end of the year, ask your child how they felt during the pledge...
(clap) (clap) (clap) (clap)
Regarding your change from Atheist to Agnostic. I agree with you there is very little proof of God. Honestly, there isn't any proof at all.
Similarly there is no proof of Unicorns, Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy and all those wonderful fictitious characters we all know so well. You are not agnostic about the belief in unicorns or Santa Clause etc, so why would you be agnostic about the belief in a supernatural deity?
A reasonable question, no?
That's why I consider myself, in terms of mandkind's supernatural (ficticious) deities, an atheist, down right.
in a more universal sense, I would guess I'm an agnostic.
I am curious, ya big athiest non believer you, but if you contend the removal of this phraseology at this point, then what will you want to do with the Star Spangled banner, ...this is the last verse of the National anthem ...
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner forever shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Dows this mean youll want to remove "In God we trust" from the national anthem too ?????
President Lincolns Gettysberg address, if the logic of the anti pledge lefties is upheld, would possible also have to be censored in public schools --- President lincoln was the guy who fought the civil war so that people with non white skin might be free etc ---
Heres the address in its entirety - uncensored - unabridged and most importantly of all - un corrected ---
"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate — we cannot consecrate — we cannot hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Happy reading
You forget something brian, you shoot at the wrong target, why?
simple, it's about us reserving the right to say it or not, not about REMOVING it, we're not using the christian approach on ripping stuff out of other's life becuase we don't agree with it.
Jesus himself (speaking in a context that he was actually someone important) tells you do thing 1 and thing 2.
Doesn't mean we have to still.
it's not about quoting history, it's about our rights, here and now.
And as people always feel the need to shove a category (religion) and index you in the social ladder in society, having a "God(s)" as default, there's a discrepancy becuase, as even a trained monkey knows, atheists don't have one, there lies the problem, you can say as many religious things as you want on your anthems and such, just don't force it on others like a lot of people do.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Lets respect our diferences Antonio
I don't see any disrespect in what I said, Brian. besides saying that you strayed off on the wrong alley. after all this is a discussion, which in all irony, asks for respect of our differences.
Oh shakespeare shakespeare
Post a Comment
<< Home