posted June 14, 2004 11:21 PM            

Court Allows 'Under God' on Technicality

8 minutes ago

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday allowed millions of schoolchildren to keep affirming loyalty to one nation "under God" but dodged the underlying question of whether the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional blending of church and state.

The ruling overturned a lower court decision that the religious reference made the pledge unconstitutional in public schools. But the decision did so on technical grounds, ruling the man who brought the case on behalf of his 10-year-old daughter could not legally represent her.

It was an anticlimactic end to an emotional high court showdown over God in the public schools and in public life. It also neutralizes what might have been a potent election-year political issue in which the Bush administration argued strongly that the reference to God should remain part of the pledge.

The outcome does not prevent a future court challenge over the same issue, however, and both defenders and opponents of the current wording predicted that fight will come quickly.

For now, five justices said the court could not rule on the case because California atheist Michael Newdow does not have full custody of his daughter.

"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites) wrote for the majority.

Newdow, who has fought a protracted custody battle with the girl's mother, was angered by the decision and the basis for it.

"She spends 10 days a month with me," he said. "The suggestion that I don't have sufficient custody is just incredible."

Three other justices went along with the outcome, but seemed to accuse the majority of using Newdow's legal standing as a fig leaf to avoid the harder constitutional issue. The three, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites), made clear that they would have upheld the religious reference.

The court's ninth justice, Antonin Scalia (news - web sites), removed himself from the case after making off-the-bench remarks that seemed to telegraph his view that the pledge is constitutional.

The phrase "one nation under God" is more about ceremony and history than about religion, Rehnquist wrote. He likened the phrase to the motto "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, and to the call that opens each session of the high court itself: "God save this honorable court."

"All these events strongly suggest that our national culture allows public recognition of our nation's religious history and character," Rehnquist wrote.

Nathan Diament, policy director for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, said most Americans would be relieved by the ruling.

"There is a consensus in this country that there is an appropriate place for expressions of religion in the public square," Diament said.

The First Amendment guarantees that government will not "establish" religion, wording that has come to mean a general ban on overt government sponsorship of religion in public schools and elsewhere.

The Supreme Court already has said schoolchildren cannot be required to recite the oath that begins, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America." The court also has repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.

Before 1954, when the United States was in the middle of the Cold War, the pledge did not include a reference to God. In adding it, members of Congress said they wanted to set the United States apart from "godless communists."

In a ruling last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) in San Francisco said the language of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's precedents make clear that tax-supported schools cannot lend their imprimatur to a declaration of fealty to "one nation under God."

That decision set off a national uproar and would have stripped the reference to God from the version of the pledge said by about 9.6 million schoolchildren in California and other Western states covered by the appeals court.

Children were never barred from saying the full pledge, because the lower court ruling was on hold while the Supreme Court considered the issue.

Like most elementary school children, Newdow's daughter hears her teacher lead the pledge each morning. The case began when Newdow, a lawyer, doctor and self-proclaimed atheist minister, sued his daughter's Sacramento-area school district, Congress and President Bush (news - web sites) to remove the words "under God."

In one of the many odd twists to an odd case, Newdow served as his own lawyer when the Supreme Court heard arguments in March. He argued that each day his daughter hears the pledge is another day that a teacher tells her, in effect, that her father is wrong.

The mother, Sandra Banning, told the court in legal filings that she makes the decisions about the girl's education. Newdow can fight the pledge on his own, but should not drag their daughter into it, Banning argued. She added that she supports leaving the pledge as it is, and wants her daughter to continue reciting it at school.

The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624.

juniperb

posted June 15, 2004 12:08 AM              

To deny the existance of God is one's choice, but to impose that on the majority by creating a complete absence of God in the structure of our society is too indulgent upon those who are simply lost, and surely drifting in search of something...I don't think it serves them well, or anyone else for that matter.

If he doesn't believe in God, how does he explain why he feels love for his daughter? Is it just an investment in his future, someone to support him in his final days?

The fact that we Love is proof that there is a God, and we are all fragments of that God.

As a society, it certainly doesn't do any harm to have a higher power to answer to, and base our morals on. Without those, we're nothing more than a pack of wolves, devouring one another to ensure our own survival, even our young.

Loving your children calls for sacrifice. We love them more than life itself. Most of us, if put in a position to choose our own survival over the survival of our offspring, would choose to die in order to let them live. How do you explain that?

Love is divine, and so are we because we are able to experience it. That is not a result of being a simple biological creature. That is a result of being a piece of the Divine, AKA, God.

posted June 15, 2004 08:44 AM              

perhaps some people have a problem with the word "God" and all the loaded history that word conveys. maybe as more people begin finding their own spirituality and healing spiritual pain that was a result of abuses in the name of religion, we'll be able to use that word again as just a label for something unnamable.

personally, i would hope that each child would have his or her own understanding of God, but since this often isn't the case i can see why it would seem like a belief system is being imposed from without. i would love to see more emphasis on teaching world religions to children - i think they inately understand the overarching truths that tie all religions together at their base - love, compassion, right living - no matter what part of the world you look to.

of course, some folks may also believe there is no divine force, and we're all just worm food after we die. how sad and lonely that must be. :blueheart:

posted June 15, 2004 11:22 PM            

quote:

---

some folks may also believe there is no divine force, and we're all just worm food after we die. how sad and lonely that must be

---

XB, is that the same thing as cosmic glop ? I wonder If we said 'under glop' instead of 'under god' ? It seems someone is always going to be offended no matter what the term. Perhaps doing away with the pledge all together would please the people?

Sadly, I don`t see an answer that will please everyone, so what to do...

I agree that my soul/me being worm food and having cosmic glop for a creator would be a sad and lonely existance

posted June 17, 2004 09:12 AM              

"in what does the alienation of labor consist? First, that the work is external to the worker, that it is not a part of his nature, that consequently he does not fulfill himself in his work but denies himself, has a feeling of misery, not of well-being. The worker therefore feels himself at home only during his leisure, whereas at work he feels homeless."

"the more these conscious illusions of the ruling classes are shown to be false and the less the staisfy common sense, the more dogmatically they are asserted and the more deceitful, moralizing and spiritual becomes the language of established society."

-Karl Marx

It's really not so scary is it? No, I'm not a red commie. And I think Stalin made a mockery and a mess out of Marx's ideas, but some of his observations are more than gobbldy gook. Some of them are worth a read.

posted June 17, 2004 04:21 PM            

The seeds of the destruction of communism are contained within the concept that people will labor to the extent of their ability for equal benefit or no benefit at all. People are not equal in ability and that's evident and has been through human history. Human nature being what it is, some only go through the motions and gain an undeserved benefit from the labor of others.

I don't find any facts in the writings of Marx. Lots of self serving conclusions but little in the way of fact as they relate to why people work, how they feel about work, their job, their employer, capital etc.

The road to communism is based on class envy and greed. Greed being defined as a desire for something one didn't earn by their own labor or the deployment and risk of their own capital.

posted June 17, 2004 11:45 PM            

If there were a ruling class, they would rule with the consent of those who vote for them. Their ruling status could be withdrawn at any election. I don't know where these ideas come from.

I hear charges of slavery periodically or serfdom and I can't buy into the concept. First, everyone in America is free to go as far and as fast as their talent and motivation will take them. No one is required to take and keep an entry level job forever. In fact, that's against the principals of business in this country. Companies expect employees to gain experience and or education and advance within the company, in fact, they encourage that and often pay or help to pay for it. Often, employees gain experience and use that to advance with another company.....moving on up the ladder both in salary and position. That's the American model TINK, it hasn't been repealed.

For those with drive and motivation to be in business for themselves, who have experience in a field or have a new idea, there is financing available....through the government or institutional financing. The SBA guarantees loans amounting to billions each year. For those who are turned down for institutional financing, the government has a direct loan program....women and minorities go to the head of the line.

For those who want to do business with the government, there is another program. Again, women and minorities go to the head of the line in letting some government contracts for goods and services.

I worked for major corporations for years TINK. Corporations make business decisions and I always knew I would have a job as long as they needed me. I never bought into the idea they attempt to promote that we were just one big happy family So, I kept my resume up to date....usually within a week or two of taking a new position. And, when something disturbed me about my employer or I had the experience to fill a better or more responsible position somewhere else, I moved on and did so.

The point is that it's all up to you but the opportunity is there and always has been. Let me put it this way; in America, the only one holding you back is you.

posted June 18, 2004 02:47 AM            

The world is a tough place, and it's only going to continue getting tougher as competition for land and resources increases along w/ population and the development of currently third world countries. I want to be able to put my future family ahead of that curve - to give them every advantage and benefit I can.

But I know one thing - if I work twice as hard as my neighbor, and only ever get the exact same ration of everything that they do, and my children will be no better off despite my extra efforts, what's my motivation to work hard?

Nothing.

...and that is, in a nutshell, why communism doesn't work. Lack of motivation is the fundamental nugget of destruction in the whole communist equation.

Oh, and what Jwhop said...there's plenty of opportunity, people need to quit focusing on what they're convinced they're denied, and look more to the opportununites that are often lying right beneath their noses.