ASHINGTON(AP) The Supreme Court at least temporarily preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath while sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.
The decision leaves untouched the practice in which millions of schoolchildren around the country begin the day by reciting the pledge.
The court said the atheist could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.
The father, Michael Newdow, is in a protracted custody fight with the girl's mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, eight members of the court said. Justice Antonin Scalia did not participate in the case.
"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 wrote for the court.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the outcome of the case, but still wrote separately to say that the Pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas agreed with him.
The high court's lengthy opinion overturns a ruling two years ago that the teacher-led pledge was unconstitutional in public schools. That appeals court 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.
The case involved Newdow's grade school daughter, who like most elementary school children, hears the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily.
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 has already said that schoolchildren cannot be required to recite the oath that begins, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America."
The court has also repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 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 of "one nation under God."
The Bush administration, the girl's school and Newdow all asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the case.
The administration had asked the high court to rule against Newdow, either on the legal question of his ability to sue or on the constitutional issue. The administration argued that the reference to God in the pledge is more about ceremony and history than about religion.
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
Like the article says, they didn't determine whether the phrase "under God" violates that separation, only that the father cannot legally speak for his daughter in this case. The jury is still out, so to speak.
Taz, you're going to have to show me that pary of the Constitution. I can't seem to find it anywhere.
Quote:
You know that it is seperation of Church and State, not God and State!
Since I figure it is all voluntary and they can't stop me or my grand daughter from saying it the way she has been taught at home with our values, It has never been an issue for me. If you want to say it, say it. If you choose not to don't. Keep it simple silly.
__________________
Now you have to picture a combination of PeeWEE Herman and Wally Cox but with less muscle tone, trying to be intimidating None of this is funny! Message edited by Cougar Mag -- 1/7/2005 1:16:42 AM >/b]
Depends upon what you call the "Whole Constitution" In the bill of rights, amendment 1 it says:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Everyone seems to be overlooking these two excertps....
Quote:
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the outcome of the case, but still wrote separately to say that the Pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas agreed with him.
.....
The Supreme Court has already said that schoolchildren cannot be required to recite the oath that begins, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
So, they didn't rule on the specifics of the case, I have also read elsewhere that the girls mother and the girl where against the father's actions. However the two above statements should probably finish this for good anyway. Not only have 3 of them said it was fine as it, they have also ruled that schools can NOT require students to cite the pledge. So since schools (ie the government) cannot force you to say the pledge, they cannot force you to NOT skip parts, then it is NOT a mandate for religion. Case closed (at least in my opinion and I am as far from the Christian right as you can get and not be an atheist.)
Taz, I don't want to get way off the thread but nowhere in there, and I have read that many times, does it say anything about separtation of church and state. That has been how people have twisted the words, not what they say.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Not referencing you here Taz but you know the old saying that if you tell a lie often enough sooner or later you'll begin to believe it yourself. I think this is a perfect example of that come true. You hear it so often, Separation of Church and State, that people believe that is what it states. It does not.
If one is to argue that any reference to a deity must be removed, let us state with All men are Created equally. Created by WHO????
Give me one example of when the US Government attempted or did establish any religion. Certian not in this case. Recognizing a belief in a deity is not establishing anything.
__________________
Now you have to picture a combination of PeeWEE Herman and Wally Cox but with less muscle tone, trying to be intimidating None of this is funny! Message edited by Cougar Mag -- 1/7/2005 1:16:42 AM >/b]
God stay's in the pledge!
and I am as far from the Christian right as you can get and not be an atheist.)
