It’s another win for Michael Newdow in his attempt to get “Under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance. A federal court judge rules that reciting the Pledge in public schools is unconstitutional since forcing kids to refer to God violates their freedoms.
It will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the most liberal federal appeals court, so it will probably pass. But then it will go up to the Supreme Court and likely get stomped again, just like Michael Newdow’s last case.
I find that really frustrating. I remember as a kid wondering what the hell the deal was with the “under God” reference and being bothered by it, just like I was also bothered by the “in God we trust” stuff on our money. If we have freedom of religion in the U.S., isn’t part of that freedom to not believe in God? Why then do we have God emblazoned across all our currency and the Pledge of Allegiance and all sorts of other crud? It’s never made sense to me. So I’m rooting for Michael. He’s not the most videogenic guy to put on CNN or Fox News representing this issue, but I’m sure glad he’s taking a stand.
Another win on the Pledge of Allegiance
by
Tags:
Comments
2 responses to “Another win on the Pledge of Allegiance”
You wrote: A federal court judge rules that reciting the Pledge in public schools is unconstitutional since forcing kids to refer to God violates their freedoms.
Newdow’s point seems to be that it is unconstitutional to force kids to listen to state employees — the teachers — and the kids’ classmates recite the current pledge. The Supreme Court has already ruled that it is unconstitutional to force anyone to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. That was in 1943 — probably before you were born. The case was West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. Here is part of the majority opinion in that case:
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us. We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.
I would prefer that our present Supreme Court say that no government can force anyone to listen to the Pledge of Alligiance any more than a government can force anyone to recite it. I venture no predictions of the Court’s action. It is a safe bet that, if Newdow prevails, some people would then say that the Court has forbidden anyone to say the Pledge. That’s nonsense. People will remain perfectly free to recite it on private property. Why people of faith would want the support of anything so coercive and corrupt as government is beyond me.
first off, may i say what a stupid thing to bitch about…If you don’t like “under God” in the pledge dont say it…thats part of your first amedment right is freedom of speech and your right to remain silent..as for the money, may i remind you that we are a democratic society. until Athiests outnumber the amount of religious groups, “In God We Trust” will stay on the money because that doesn’t pertain to just the Jewish/Christian God…that can pertain to Buddha, Mohamed, and many more. But hey, if you want something to complain about in schools, how bout you look a little closer, maybe like at the point of going to school…yea getting an education and the lack thereof these days. thats a topic for concern not “oh i dont wanna say that.” if you dont want to say it dont, but if your not gonna change it, shut up. lifes to short to spend 1/4 of it complaining about the way things should be…things will never be perfect because perfect is nothing more than an opinion and there’s too many opnions out there.
just a thought
buffer