Supreme Court takes on fight over Pledge of Allegiance

[Caliente]

10:43 AM CDT on Tuesday, October 14, 2003

Associated Press


WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the Pledge of Allegiance recited by generations of American schoolchildren is an unconstitutional blending of church and state.

The case sets up an emotional showdown over God in the public schools and in public life. It will settle whether the phrase "one nation under God" will remain a part of the patriotic oath as it is recited in most classrooms.

The court will hear the case sometime next year.

The justices agreed to hear an appeal involving a California atheist whose 9-year-old daughter, like most elementary school children, hears the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily.

A national uproar followed a federal appeals court ruling last year that the reference to God made the pledge unconstitutional in public schools. That ruling, if allowed to stand, would strip the reference from the version of the pledge recited by about 9.6 million schoolchildren in California and other western states.

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 to "one nation under God."

The administration, the girl's school and atheist Michael Newdow all asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the case.

The court, however, agreed only to hear the appeal from the school district. The administration will be able to weigh in separately. The court also said it will consider whether Newdow had the proper legal footing to bring the case.

In its legal filings so far, the administration has argued that the reference to God in the pledge is more about ceremony and history than about religion.

The reference is an "official acknowledgment of our nation's religious heritage," similar to the "In God We Trust" stamped on coins and bills, Solicitor general Theodore Olson told the court. It is far-fetched to say such references post a real danger of imposing state-sponsored religion, Olson wrote.

Moreover, being a parent of a child in public school does not give a parent the power to dictate what the child will be exposed to, Olson said.

"Public schools routinely instruct students about evolution, war and other matters with which some parent may disagree on religious, political or moral grounds," he said in his appeal.

The administration also claimed that Newdow cannot sue on behalf of his daughter because he does not have custody of her. Newdow and the child's mother, Sandra Banning, have waged a long and bitter custody battle over the child, who lives with her mother. Newdow claims a judge recently gave him joint custody of the girl, whose name is not part of the legal papers filed with the Supreme Court.

To complicate matters, Banning has told the court she has no objection to the pledge.

Newdow holds medical and legal degrees, and says he is an ordained minister. He is representing himself in filings at the high court, and has said he will argue his case in person.

"Those who deny the existence of a supreme being have been turned into second class citizens by a government that continuously sends messages that 'real Americans' believe in God," Newdow told the justices in his appeal.

Newdow sued the school, Congress, President Bush and others to eliminate the words "under God." He asked for no damages.

The phrase "under God" was not part of the original pledge adopted by Congress as a patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress inserted the phrase more than a decade later, in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold.

Supporters of the new wording said it would set the United States apart from godless communism.

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

[Drbio]

I don't give a rats behind what they decide....I and my family will ALWAYS state loudly the "One nation under GOD" and I have a feeling that a significantly large number of people will do the same. My kids will yell it at school if they have to. This is pure bullcrap.


Let them come at us for boldly proclaiming one nation under GOD. I will open up a free speach suit equal to none other.

[LRB]

It will settle whether the phrase "one nation under God" will remain a part of the patriotic oath as it is recited in most classrooms.

Talk about splitting hairs on a tick's @ss. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img] We have more important things to occupy our courts with than nuisance lawsuits like this. So long as the kid isn't forced to say the pledge, then I don't see what the problem is. Obviously this jerkoff starting the suit is the real world version of a Troll.

[signoftimes]

Newdow is a jackass. This has nothing to do with free speech and his daughter feeling like a second class citizen. This has everything to do with him feeding his ego. He's representing himself in front of the Supreme court. He's feeding his ego, and wanting everyone to see how smart he is.

Maybe if he spent less time parading around and suing Congress and the president, he'd have more time to fight for custody of his own child

[MavKikiNYC]

[Drbio]

I love Calvin and Hobbes.....[img]i/expressions/heart.gif[/img]

[LRB]

So kiki is this a case of life imitating art or art imitating life? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

[MavKikiNYC]

Two interesting side-issues to this case, bolded at bottom.

Justices Take Case on Pledge of Allegiance's Reference to God
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

Published: October 14, 2003


WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 — The Supreme Court added the Pledge of Allegiance to the docket for its new term on Tuesday, agreeing to consider whether public schools violate the Constitution by requiring teachers to lead their classes in pledging allegiance to the flag of "one Nation under God."

The justices, who begin their daily session with heads bowed as the marshal intones "God save the United States and this honorable court," accepted a case that like the affirmative-action and gay-rights cases of the last term places the court at the center of a heated public controversy.

The case is an appeal by a California school district of a decision that has been the subject of an intense national debate since the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, issued it 16 months ago.

The Federal District Court in Sacramento initially dismissed a lawsuit brought by an atheist, Michael A. Newdow, who said he did not want his daughter exposed daily in her elementary school classroom to "a ritual proclaiming that there is a God." The Ninth Circuit overturned that decision, first ruling in June 2002 that the words "under God," added by federal statute in 1954, made the pledge itself unconstitutional.

In an amended opinion issued earlier this year, the court narrowed its ruling by confining it to the public school context, invalidating school policies that require teachers to lead willing students in the pledge. Ever since a Supreme Court decision on behalf of Jehovah's Witnesses in 1943, public schools may not compel students to recite the pledge. The Supreme Court indicated today that it would address only the recitation of the pledge in public schools, not its constitutionality as a general matter.

The Supreme Court's action today had several unusual elements that could have an impact on the eventual outcome. One was the decision by Justice Antonin Scalia not to participate in the case, an evident if unacknowledged response to a "suggestion for recusal of Justice Scalia" that Mr. Newdow sent to the court last month.

Mr. Newdow cited news reports of remarks the justice made at an event in Fredericksburg, Va., last January that was co-sponsored by the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic organization that a half-century ago played a leading role in persuading Congress to add "under God" to the pledge. According to the reports, Justice Scalia's speech at "Religious Freedom Day" pointed to the Ninth Circuit's decision in this case as an example of how courts were misinterpreting the Constitution to "exclude God from the public forums and from political life."

Mr. Newdow, who is a lawyer and medical doctor who has represented himself in the litigation, told the court that the remarks indicated that Justice Scalia was not just expressing general views on the Constitution but had formed a conclusion about the case itself, providing grounds for disqualification. The code of judicial conduct and a federal law that incorporates it both provide that judges "shall disqualify" themselves in cases where their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

While these provisions do not technically apply to Supreme Court justices, the justices adhere to them and recuse themselves from cases with which they have connections through stock holdings or personal associations. It is extremely unusual, however, for a recusal to be sought or granted on the basis of a public statement of opinion on the legal controversy before the court.

Another unusual aspect of the court's order today was the suggestion that at the end of the day, this case might not be suitable for decision. The court instructed the parties to discuss whether Mr. Newdow has standing to challenge the policy of his 9-year-old daughter's public school district, Elk Grove Unified School District, near Sacramento. The girl's mother, who has custody and to whom Mr. Newdow was never married, does not object to her daughter reciting the pledge.

[EricaLubarsky]

It IS just two words. My grandparents grew up before people were saying it. Taking two words out of an 8 hour school day is not a big deal for state controlled schools. Private schools are allowed to say it with the two words, and parents will be able to recite the pledge with their children before and after school, heck, no student will be penalized for saying it.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
It isn't a big deal. My grandparents grew up before people were saying it. Honestly it isnt a big deal. I can see both sides of it, but since we never said the pledge in school it doesnt seem to be major.

It is to me. I said the pledge growing up....in schools around the world on military bases....in schools here in the United States....everywhere I ever attended school. This is rediculous. One buttmunch wants to take God out of everything. This country was founded on the principles of freedom of religion, a belief in God (regardless of your denomination). It should not be taken away.

[EricaLubarsky]

I don't agree with the guy, but I can see the legal grounds on which he is moving. There are agnostics and atheists as well as polytheists that would have issue with state-sponsored recitation of those two words, as they are religiously biased against them and there should be a separation of church and state. What is the rule now, though? That kids can say it but not everyone has to? It would be one thing if the government made all kids recite it as a mantra day after day, quite another if it is a voluntary way that kids can voice their patriotism. If no one is forced to say it, the case the gentleman has is going to have an uphill battle.

[mary]

Due to the unusual circumstances surrounding this individual case and the current make up of the Supreme Court, I would be surprised if the court ruled against the school district. However, I’d like to make the following points concerning the "big" picture here.

Point 1: This issue is important for two reasons. First of all, it requires the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Well, that’s what the Supreme Court is there for. Secondly, what’s happening inside a public classrooms is worthy of our attention. The quality of a society’s education has a serious long-term impact on the growth of the economy and the standard of living. If you don’t believe we should be concerned about what’s happening at our public schools, I suggest you visit one in the very near future.

Point 2: Parents need to be taking a more active role in the education of their children. If its their personal belief that their child’s life will be enhanced by pledging the allegiance every morning, then I believe the parents should be the ones taking that initiative.

Point 3: It would be easy to say that students or parents shouldn’t complain about the pledge as long as they’re not actually required to recite it. The problem with this is that it creates an environment in which certain students will be singled out and possibly even ostracized for their personal beliefs. That ultimately leads to alienation. Have you ever tried educating an alienated teenager? Good luck with that one.

Point 4: Gov. Perry recently signed into law a bill REQUIRING all Texas public school students to recite the U.S. and Texas pledges each day at the start of classes. If schools want to teach students the pledges, then there’s an appropriate setting to discuss that material - its called U.S. and Texas Government. And if you want to teach evolution, it should be in biology class. If you want to learn about strategic warfare, it should be in a history class. But it would be a chilly day in hell before I would ever consider starting an economics lecture with a pledge to anything.

Point 5: Our public schools are increasingly becoming more diversified every year, even across religious categories. According to religoustolerance.org, Islam is numerically the fastest growing religion in the U.S. while in terms of percentage the fastest growing religious group consists of non-believers. In this post 9/11 world, I still firmly believe in the protection of minority rights. For me the real question is, what can we do to provide everyone with the OPPORTUNITY for an equal education?

Edited for typo

[MavKikiNYC]

Interesting points, Mary.

Point 2: Parents need to be taking a more active role in the education of their children. If its their personal belief that their child’s life will be enhanced by pledging the allegiance every morning, then I believe the parents should be the ones taking that initiative.

However:

In his appeal, U.S. Solicitor Gen. Theodore B. Olson contends both rulings are wrong. The reference to God in the Pledge is an “official acknowledgment of our nation’s religious heritage,” akin to the phrase “In God We Trust” that appears on U.S. currency, Olson says. It is “farfetched” to say these references “pose a real danger of establishment of a state church,” he argues.
.
Moreover, the court should void the 9th Circuit’s ruling on the grounds that Newdow had no right to bring the complaint in the first place, Olson said. “Public schools routinely instruct students about evolution, war and other matters with which some parent may disagree on religious, political or moral grounds,” he told the court. A “noncustodial” parent does not have a right “to close off all other views” in the schools that conflict with his view, Olson said in U.S. vs. Newdow.

[EricaLubarsky]

The reason people teach evolution is because it is true. We cannot know the truth of god's or gods' existence.

That has nothing to do with the argument before the supreme court, however. The man's character has nothing to do with the interrpretation of the constitution.

[LRB]

The reason people teach evolution is because it is true.

Erica I disagree with you here. The reason that we teach evolution is because it is the scientific theory that best matches the verifiable facts. It is a theory and can change as we gain more facts. The same can be said for physics, chemistry, and other sciences as well. Of course religion and the existence of God is not based upon verifiable facts.

We also have many instance of where religion is taught in schools. The Great Awakening is an integral part of American History. The religious persecutions in Europe of Puritans and other sects was a major reason that this country was orignally settled by Europeans. However there is a difference in teaching and preaching. I do think that the pledge of allegiance falls under the teaching and not preaching. It reflects and teaches the mindset that our founding fathers had IMO.

[dallas_esq]

Evolutionary theory is just that, and cannot be proven. I buy into the logic inherent in the evolution argument but I see no evidence of it. Religion was taught in my school, but I was firmly in the mainstream. We are trying to protect that unique citizen here, that's what the constitution has been about for a while now. This is not efficient government, but it is government that answers to principles.

Pledge of Alegiance can at least teach these athiest/agnostic children, who haven't yet had time to believe in anything, that their parents are wierdos and they are going to be wierdos too and they better start getting used to is and do something about it. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Children are ostracized for many reasons. Religion doesn't present itself for lively debate in elementary and junior high schools. Why shouldn't the pledge say "under god?" Obviously this is a primarily christian country in make up of citizens and power structure. So let's be straight with these Muslim kids and let them know right away where they are, so they can take steps to adjust to this fact.