atheist_in_foxhole

Given the current political climate, this is NOT the right time to file these kinds of suits. This case will be heard by the Supreme Court, and you can bet that the court will side with the godbots. When that happens the fundies will have a court decision (writen by Scalia, most likely) supporting their insane view that this is a xian nation founded by xians, for xians etc. and there won't be a damn thing we can do about it. And even if we did manage to win in court (not likely) the Republican Congress would almost certainly pass an amendment to the Constitution that affirms our "Judeo-Xian heritage." And that would be a fucking disaster. That one amendment could knock down literally dozens of church/state court decisions that we have won over the years.

A better strategy for our side would be to wait until we have more progressive judges on the bench and a progressive president in the White House. Until then we will just keep on losing.

scombrid

Local news man (that dumbass Andy Fox for you Hampton Roads listeners) this morning:

watching the sunrise on weather cam:
The dipshit slipped in his opinion even when he was reading the story that the 9th refused to re-hear the case. He sounded absolutely flabbergasted that a minority had the nerve to tell the majority what to do.

Then Orin Hatch was on the national program spewing the same sentiment that we can't have these liberal activist judges letting a tiny minority run rough shod over the rights of americans. How dare those atheist tell us what to do. He then plugged Estrada making sure to include that he was HISPANIC and that the democrats were blocking a HISPANIC appointment for no reason.

It seems that none of the pledge forcing supporters have yet grasped the difference between us infringing on their rights and their being prevented from infringing on the rights of others.

If these dipshits think that kids learn their values in school, then their kids must be pretty screwed up. I learned my core values from my parents.

gilly54

I guess this can be looked at two ways. If you go to a fundy school and have fundy parents, then you are doubly screwed. If you have fundy parents, but go to a school that obeys CSS, you will be exposed to a secular environment and way of thinking and (hopefully, after evolution is taught in science class) question the crap you are learning at home.

Gilly

Grumpy

Sure it can, silly. The pre-1954 pledge was obviously biased against theists. Adding the words "under God" made it religiously neutral.

SecularFuture

Don't celebrate yet. The Bush Administration could still take the ruling to the supreme court.

crazyfingers

Below was just emailed by American Atheists. I have not found a link on their website yet. I'll post a link and shorten this post when/if I find that they have posted this.

************************************************


ASHCROFT PROMISES APPEAL IN PLEDGE CASE; REVISED DECISION STOPS SHORT OF DECLARING 1954 LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Attorney General John Aschcroft told reporters yesterday that the
government will likely appeal a decision by a federal court to not
hear arguments in a case declaring the words "under God" in the Pledge
of Allegiance to violate the First Amendment.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 15-14 to take no
further action regarding its June, 2002 ruling in NEWDOW v. U.S.
California Atheist Michael Newdow sued the Elk Grove, California
school district charging that his daughter's rights were violated by
the daily pledge recitation which included the controversial religious
phrase. The original Pledge of Allegiance did not have "under God,"
however; those words were added thanks to a 1954 federal law passed by
Congress and signed by then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Praising the new legislation and groups like the Roman Catholic
Knights of Columbus which has pushed for its enactment, the President
declared:

"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily
proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse,
the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."

News of the decision was carried last night by major media outlets.
The ensuing outcry was similar to that heard last summer when a panel
of the Ninth Circuit Court made its original ruling.

"The Justice Department will spare no effort to preserve the rights of
all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag," blustered
Ashcroft in a prepared statement. "We will defend the ability of
Americans to declare their patriotism through the time-honored
tradition of voluntarily reciting the Pledge."

The Attorney General also cited the presence of religious mottoes and
themes in the country's history. "For centuries, our nation has
referenced God as we have expressed out patriotism and national
identity in our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, national
anthem, on our coins, and in the Gettysburg Address," declared
Ashcroft. "The Supreme Court of the United States opens each session
by saying, 'God save this honorable Court.'"

Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists, said that Ashcroft was
distorting the issues and misleading the public.

"This case has nothing to do with the right of people to recite the
Pledge of Allegiance," said Johnson. "The decision by the Ninth
Circuit panel focused on the inclusion of two words, 'under God,' that
were not part of the original pledge."

"This is about government promoting religion, and demanding religious
fealty as a litmus test for patriotism and loyalty. That's wrong, and
it should be declared unconstitutional."

Constitutional Issues Blurred

Aschroft mentioned other constitutionally suspect practices such as
the use of religious slogans on coins as an historical and legal
rationale supporting the "under God" oath in the Pledge. So did
California Gov. Gray Davis, who released a statement noting that "at
the start of every court session, the Supreme Court invokes God's
blessing. So does the Senate and House of Representatives. Surely
the Supreme Court will permit schoolchildren to invoke God's name
while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance."

Those arguments seemed to typify the confusion that has arisen over a
number of church-state separation issues, everything from prayer in
school to the display of religious icons on public property and even
the use of tax money to support religion-based social services.
Courts and attorneys arguing various sides in legal cases have
increasingly realized that First Amendment law is fluid, blurred, even
contradictory. Some defenders of the current Pledge argue that those
practices, such as the "In God We Trust" national motto, lose any
sectarian or religious character and become examples of what the late
Justice William J. Brennan referred to as "ceremonial deism."

That term was first employed in the legal vernacular by Dean Eugene
Rostow of Yale University Law School who used it during the 1962
Meikeljohn Lecture at Brown University. He suggested that certain
phrases, practices or symbols might surrender their religious and
sectarian character by sheer repetition. Brennan then amalgamated the
theory in a written dissent in LYNCH v. DONNELLY (1984), a case which
examined the constitutionality of a Christian nativity cr che on
public property. He opined that the religionized national motto, or
the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance was a form of
"ceremonial deism" and thus "protected from Establishment Clause
scrutiny because (these practices) ... have lost through rote
repetition any significant religious content..."

But courts have never seemed able to codify appropriate standards for
determining when a practice is "ceremonial deism" or a clear violation
of the First Amendment separation of church and state.

Will The Case Reach The Supreme Court?

There appears to be a conflict between the NEWDOW decision and a 7th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in SHERMAN v. COMMUNITY
CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT (1992). Justices in the latter case
concluded that the ceremonial invocations of God were not an
establishment of religion. They also pointed to the 1983 U.S.
Supreme Court case, MARSH v. CHAMBERS which permitted the practice of
legislative prayer.

Others disagree. One Circuit Court jurist, Judge Fortunato Benavides,
says that Establishment Clause law is "rife with confusion."

Dr.Marci Hamilton, Professor of Law at the Benjamin Cardozo School of
Law, warns that the "under God' version of the Pledge promotes
majoritarian religion.

"Those who denounce the Ninth Circuit's well-reasoned opinion in the
Pledge case simply offer us more of the same campaign to enshrine
majority religious belief as universal truth imposed upon all," she
wrote in the wake of the original NEWDOW case decision.

The claptrap about "ceremonial deism" and other excrescences of public
religion, though, are rarely used by the extreme religious critics of
the Ninth Circuit ruling. It is, for them, all about religion, and
the significance of religion in the public square.

Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, a religious
advocacy group founded by televangelist Pat Robertson, told the
Washington Times that the Circuit Court's decision "must not stand."

"The hostility of this appeals court (to religious faith) is absurd
and underscores faulty conclusions," Sekulow added.

ACLJ had filed an amicus brief in NEWDOW pleading for reconsideration
of the original finding. Sekulow says that the group, which currently
represents 15 members of Congress in the appeals process, is seeking
additional support.

Meanwhile, yesterday's decision reflects division even within the
Ninth Circuit.

* Senior Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin proposed that the court
rehear the case in response to the public outcry over the original
ruling. He then voted against his own request, as did the other
judges in the original ruling of June 26, 2003.

* Six justices voting in favor of another hearing opined that the
original decision was "wrong, very wrong," and even said that the
court's reasoning would consign the Gettysburg Address, Constitution,
Declaration of Independence and the singing of the National Anthem "to
the chopping block." Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain declared "The
Pledge of Allegiance is simply not a 'religious act' as the two-judge
majority asserts. Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance cannot possibly
be an 'establishment of religion' under any reasonable interpretation
of the Constitution."

* Friday's published decision technically stopped short of
specifically declaring that the 1954 law was unconstitutional. It did
reaffirm earlier wording, though, and declared:

"The statement that the United States is a nation 'under God' is an
endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief,
namely, a belief in monotheism."

* Judge Stephen Reinhardt, appointed by President Carter to the
judiciary in 1979, authored the majority opinion in yesterday's
announcement. Reinhardt tasked a dissent authored by fellow Judge
O'Scannlain who suggested that the court should reverse itself, in
part, "by observing the public and political reaction to the
decision."

"We may not -- we must not -- allow public sentiment or outcry to
guide our decisions," Reinhardt wrote. "The Bill of Rights is, of
course, intended to protect the rights of those in the minority
against the temporary passions of a majority."

For further information:

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/legal.htm
(Coverage of the 2/29 ruling from the Ninth Circuit)

Toto

The ruling was issued on a Friday afternoon and hit the papers Saturday morning. It has been mentioned, but I haven't heard any big outcry. I wonder if it is old news, or if the defense of the ruling has started to sink in?

I think the best outcome might be for the Supreme Court to refuse to hear the case, and let the issue be debated in the public. The next best outcome might be that the Supreme Court takes the case and reverses on some minor procedural aspect (I notice that the standing issue has disappeared.)

The worst outcome: The Supreme Court takes the case and uses it as a vehicle to make new law, allowing a preference for religious belief over non-belief. Possibly even worse: The Supreme Court upholds it, and the religious right gets a Constitutional amendment passed allowing a preference of belief over non-belief.

{edited to add: the ACLJ press release from Jay Sekulow says only that he is "disappointed" and is going to mount a big petition campaign.}

RufusAtticus

Does the Federal Government even have standing anymore in the case? Newdow II only declares the California law unconstitutional, correct? Then Ashcroft & co don't have any standing.

BigBlue2

..thereby excluding the millions of muslim, pagan, buddhist, hindu, atheist etc schoolchildren who don't believe in that particular superstition. Is your president really this dense or is he just getting bad advice?

I am a non-American with limited knowledge of the US constitution and US law but even I know that the word "God" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. I also know that the Declaration of Independence, national anthem, Gettysburg Address or writings on coins do not provide a basis for American law. I find it mind-boggling that your top law official does not also possess this knowledge - or at least pretends to not possess it.

At least your courts possess a bit more common sense.

Toto

The president referred to in that quote was Eisenhower. He got some bad advice.

Quote:

I am a non-American with limited knowledge of the US constitution and US law but even I know that the word "God" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. I also know that the Declaration of Independence, national anthem, Gettysburg Address or writings on coins do not provide a basis for American law. I find it mind-boggling that your top law official does not also possess this knowledge - or at least pretends to not possess it. At least your courts possess a bit more common sense.

Ideology overrides legality for Ashcroft.