Supreme Court to hear Pledge case on 24th!

Chris OConnor

The U.S. Supreme Court has set March 24 as the date it will hear oral arguments over whether public school students can be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the words “under God.” Read more...

I've been invited to fly up to Washington on Tuesday to support Newdow on the opening day at the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, events in my life won't allow me to take the 3 days off to make the trip. As can be imagined I'm dissappointed and frustrated.

Please read the article and lets talk about this upcoming court battle. "Under God" wasn't added until the mid 50's and has no business being in our nation's Pledge. Any opinions?

Chris

"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them" -- Mark Twain

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 3/20/04 4:45 pm

Tiarella

I've never thought it belonged, but then, I was still a kid when my Dad told me all about it getting added in. I said the entire pledge as a kid, but as an adult, I omit the objectionable parts. Get some strange looks, sometimes.

My father also said he didn't think we should pledge allegiance to the flag! He was perfectly happy to pledge allegiance to the United States of America, but he objected to the idolatry. He felt no allegiance to a piece of cloth.

Unfortunately, the syntax won't hold, if you remove "the flag of" from the pledge. We'd have to rewrite the whole thing.

My parents, btw, refused to sign the loyalty oath during the McCarthy era, promising to turn in any communists - and consequently lost their University jobs. The insertion of 'under God' to the pledge was just another McCarthyism.

I googled this: www.restorethepledge.com/

edit: looks like this website's in direct contact with Mike Newdow. Read his letter!

www.restorethepledge.com/mike_newdow

Edited by: Tiarella at: 3/20/04 8:58 pm

Tiarella

I read in the paper today that the gentleman does not have custody of his child, that the mother (who was never his wife) is very religious and opposes his action, and so the opposing side is arguing that he doesn't have the legal standing to make this case.

Are you following the case, Chris?

Naturyl

One of several Amicus briefs in this case was submitted by my organization, the Universal Pantheist Society. We are among 'alternative' groups that are asking the Supreme Court to consider removing the Judeo-centric 'under god' phrase from the Pledge.

"No nirvana without samsara; no samsara without nirvana." -Nagarjuna

jesiclone

I just want to say that America was not founded on the idea to promote Christianity. Puritan pilgrims immigrated to America since they disliked the Anglican Church (which was a minor modification of Catholicism) created by King Henry VIII (to get a divorce). Puritans decided to leave England since they weren't tolerated. This nation was founded on the idea of freedom of religion. That is why the Puritans came to America. They want to go over to an "uninhabited" land and practice their beliefs freely. Unfortunately, Christianity has survived in the generations since then, and many Christian Americans believe it is a traditional core value of this nation, thus patriotic for a Christian.

Even though defenders of that phrase say that the "under God" can be interpreted and implicitly state "under Jesus, Allah, Jehovah" (assuming God is to assume that this is a nation of monotheist for if it was Gods, then it would be open to polytheists and monotheists) the majority of Americans being Christians assume God = Jesus. Now if Islam was dominant in America, the Christians would have a problem since many would claim Allah is not Jesus (yet I believe that Jehovah and Allah are the same entity, yet different labels/names).

ah...well in time "In God We Trust" and "under God" will be discarded since advancements of science will discourage people from religion and realize how life is.

Tiarella

The Supreme Court sidestepped it.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5208621/

Quote:
The court said atheist Michael Newdow 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

ZachSylvanus

I think it's kind of suspicious how they define him as "atheist Michael Newdow"....if he were Anglican, do you think they'd have said "the Anglican Michael Newdow"?

Chris OConnor

Newdow will be back in one way or another. He has too much invested in this. I suppose we'll see him as the lawyer for some atheist parents that aren't divorced and both want their child insulated from the indoctrination of our theocracy. I feel bad for the guy and wish him well. He's been through a long haul now, and to have it end this way just isn't fair.

Chris

"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them" -- Mark Twain

Tiarella

If we're talking about fairness - the court's decision is fair to the mother. She has legal custody, has the child most of the time, was never married to the father, likes the pledge the way it is - how is it fair to her to have Newdow use her child to make a huge public bruhaha? From her point of view, Newdow must be the Prime Asshat. I agree with him re. the pledge, but boy oh boy I feel for the kid and the mother. $:\$


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT