Toto

Newdow chose himself. The established civil rights organizations didn't want to bring the case, and would rather have it go away.

They're afraid that we can't win here. Either the Supreme Court will make bad new law on church state separation to keep the pledge, or the case will become an organizing issue with the Religious Right and we will have a constitutional amendment before you can say "remember what happened to Michael Dukakis."

Rusting Car Bumper

Can we then make the claim that Newdow was thinking only of himself?


If that is true then maybe it was a poor time in history to bring the case.

DC

EverLastingGodStopper

Who cares who brings the case? The addition of the words "under God" to the Pledge is just as illegal now as it was in 1954 when Congress added it. Theists have little choice but to accept the status quo. We atheists simply don't fear the eternal repercussions that go along with fighting theocracy.

It's dismaying that personality issues are clouding the big picture. This case MUST be heard by the Supreme Court, no matter what one may think of the litigant's personality or position.

Also, American Atheists has supported Newdow financially and does not employ a staff lawyer. (If AA had a staff lawyer, it could work on more cases like this.) I'm sure that AA will glady forward donations to Newdow if people send AA any money earmarked specifically for this case.

Tell me what YOU and/or your group has done on the legal front to end theocracy. Newdow brought it to a court of law, and he hasn't quit yet. YAY.

Grumpy

Was 1998 a better time? Because that's when Newdow filed his first challenge -- in Florida, before his daughter moved to Sacramento.

If only someone could figure out a way to challenge the 1954 act. The Ninth Circuit amended its ruling to limit the dispute solely to whether "under God" is impermissable under the California's and the school district's pledge recital rules. The best Newdow can hope for is that the SCOTUS will enlarge the 1943 Barnette ruling against mandated recital (which was itself a reversal of 1940's Gobitis).

The most it can do is strike down schools' recital rules, unless an inoffensive, godless pledge is used. The Pledge itself would remain "under God" for all other purposes.

StrictSeparationist

Sorry, but this isn't strictly correct. Although the U.S. government will still be listed as the petitioner in this case, Newdow has petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse the 9th Circuit's final ruling inasmuch as it does not find unconstitutional the 1954 act. Assuming the Court were so inclined, it could affirm in part (with respect to recitation in schools) and reverse in part (with respect to the constitutionality, or lack thereof, of the 1954 Act). Also, I don't think that even if the Court were to simply hold that the Pledge with "under God" cannot be recited in schools, that ruling would be necessarily related to Barnette. The crucial distinction is that Barnette dealt strictly with individual rights (free exercise and freedom of speech, mainly). This hypothetical Newdow decision, while it might take into account some Free Exercise concerns, would necessarily be predicated mainly on the Establishment Clause as with Engel and Abington.

Rusting Car Bumper

Have you not been reading? As was stated earlier its not simply juriprudence and law at stake. Read the previous message if you didn't understand.

IIts not "personality issues." Its accepting the simple and verifiable fact that people's social relations in groups are formed more my their impressions and narratives they carry with them than by logical arguments and certainly more than what the law might say. Logical arguments and the law are great but they follow from the former they do not lead it.

My group has done nothing because its not the legal front that is of the biggest problem for religious minorities.

DC

pug846

I can’t imagine the Court would uphold the constitutionality of Congress stripping its jurisdiction on one particular issue because it disagrees with the result. These threats come up now and again, but rarely get anywhere. I’d almost like to see Congress finally pass one so the Court could strike down the practice as unconstitutional. Congress could then stop wasting taxpayers money and try to actually be useful.

I don’t think the “Under God” thing is all that big of a deal. At the end of the day, there’s about ten million issues I find more important.

StrictSeparationist

If Congress decides to stoop low enough to start meddling with the Court's jurisdiction to avoid unsatisfactory results, it would probably be smart enough to include a provision in the law prohibiting the Court from deciding any case related to the new jurisdiction-stripping statute.

EverLastingGodStopper

Hearing my children recite the Pledge as taught in public school makes me cringe. I am not teaching them to adhere to any theist doctrine, but their public school IS.

I myself as a teen was frequently "in trouble" because of my refusal to recite the Plegde. And I can't say it now, without either biting my tongue, or lying. Many teens to this day face the same dilemma in school.

Maybe those who would use the government to force theism on us all will magically stop doing so, all on their own? Until that happens, I have a hobby. Hence my nic. Hence my activism.

Some laws passed within the past 50 or so years are infringing on my right to believe as I wish in regards to a diety.

-Janice

GaryP

Janice--

I can empathize with your feelings.

As a teacher, I am required to say the Pledge every day with the kids. I'm lucky in that our school is led in the pledge by kids on the PA system.

So when it gets to UG, I just don't say it and no one seems to notice. If we ever go to just saying it in class, I would be forced to either instruct the little ones in the official pledge or come out as an Atheist to my 1st graders.

Actually, many people already know I'm an Atheist, but I wouldn't want most parents to know until I am ready to retire!