| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional |
| 2005-09-14 |
| SAN FRANCISCO - Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was declared unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge ruling in the second attempt by an atheist to have the pledge removed from classrooms. The man lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court 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. 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. |
| Posted by:ed |
| #10 The Judge obviously never had visions of Nostradamus' future "hideous beast seen near Orogon", aka Satan/Lucifer walking the earth, sub aka the real Godzilla, sub-sub aka God's Father of All VelociRaptors. Rest assured ole Gizzy or Rapty will be Leftist-style "equalist" as he equally and hungrily hunts down and munches on all humans within his grasp, be they JudaeoChristian, Moslem, Wiccan, Pagan, Buddhist or Secularist Naturalist, ... etc.? SCIENCE = the dynamic forces of the System or Universe flow andor ebb over time or certain parameters, but said forces are not supposed to speak or manifest to people in conscience and sentience. |
| Posted by: JOsephMendiola 2005-09-14 23:01 |
| #9 politely as well: remember teh Iran kidnapping? started Mecca madness...Clinton was just a buffoon and criminally negligent. Carter seemed to design his policies to shrink American power and prestige |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-09-14 20:39 |
| #8 I'm going to have to disagree (respectfully and politely; this is Rantburg) with you, Frank. I still hold that Clinton holds the #1 honor. I'd put Carter around #2 or #3. Buchanan and Pierce are in there, too. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-09-14 20:24 |
| #7 Redneck Jim has it right - it was a 1950's add-on and a mistake. |
| Posted by: Whuter Elmoluth4983 2005-09-14 20:17 |
| #6 A Carter appointee...he just keeps on rubbing our face in it, ol' Jimmuh, doesn't he? Worst.President.Ever |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-09-14 18:41 |
| #5 It's only September and already we're into reruns. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2005-09-14 18:08 |
| #4 What's next? In Allah We Trust? |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-09-14 17:59 |
| #3 I suppose a partisan speech in Congress, certainly an official setting, undermines the political rights of opposing parties? |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2005-09-14 17:09 |
| #2 I am agnostic but I cannot support this decision. This is not about the Constitution, it is about the power of a fraction of a small minority (not all atheists/agnostics support this ruling) to compel acceptance of their agenda. In my view, the "under God" provision is simply an acknowledgement that the majority belief exists and is a significant factor in national history and culture. It is not a demand or a coercive requirement to change one's belief. A hypothetical example: We present a true/false test question to public school students. "A great majority of the American people profess a belief in a god or various gods." Is it a coercive "establishment of religion" to require students to answer "true"? To even present the question in the first place? The crucial assumption in this case is particularly insidious: that the mere acknowledgement of belief carries the full weight of official authority if it is made in an official setting. This is a projection of the left-totalitarian view of authority, that all official pronouncements are coercive edicts to be obeyed by virtue of their official origin alone. This is directly opposed, of course, to common-law ideas of due process and rule of law, in which an official pronouncement is worthless in and of itself. In bringing this case at all, the Left has once again betrayed its real worldview and objectives. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2005-09-14 17:01 |
| #1 I'm old enough to remember going to school and finding the words changed from "One Nation, Indivisible" to One Nation, Under God, Indivisible" I spoke up and said "That's wrong" and was punished for it. I agree, the words were inserted, and were NOT part of the original "Pledge". Adding those two words changes the entire intent of the pledge from "America" to "God". They should indeed be removed, and the pledge restored to it's original intent and wording, a pledge to America, not a pledge to God. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2005-09-14 15:18 |