Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Atheist Calls Pledge Unconstitutional
Yahoo! News ^ | 3/24/04 | Gina Holland - AP

Posted on 03/24/2004 10:33:48 AM PST by NormsRevenge

WASHINGTON -

A California atheist told the Supreme Court Wednesday that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional and offensive to people who don't believe there is a God.

Michael Newdow, who challenged the Pledge of Allegiance on behalf of his daughter, said the court has no choice but to keep it out of public schools.

"It's indoctrinating children," he said. "The government is supposed to stay out of religion."

But some justices said they were not sure if the words were intended to unite the country, or express religion.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist noted that Congress unanimously added the words "under God" in the pledge in 1954.

"That doesn't sound divisive," he said.

"That's only because no atheists can be elected to office," Newdow responded.

Some in the audience erupted in applause in the courtroom, and were threatened with expulsion by the chief justice.

The subject of Newdow's right to bring the lawsuit had dominated the beginning of arguments in the landmark case to decide if the classroom salute in public schools violates the Constitution's ban on government-established religion.

Terence Cassidy, attorney for a suburban Sacramento school district where Newdow's 9-year-old daughter attends classes, noted to justices that the girl's mother opposed the lawsuit. "The ultimate decision-making authority is with the mother," he said.

The mother, Sandra Banning, is a born-again Christian and supporter of the pledge. "I object to his inclusion of our daughter" in the case, she said earlier Wednesday on ABC's "Good Morning America" show. She said she worries that her daughter will be "the child who is remembered as the little girl who changed the Pledge of Allegiance."

Newdow had sued the school and won, setting up the landmark appeal before a court that has repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies. But justices could dodge the issue altogether if they decide that Newdow needed the mother's consent, because she has primary custody.

Rehnquist said that the issues raised in the case "certainly have nothing to do with domestic relations." And, Justice David H. Souter said that Newdow could argue that his interest in his child "is enough to give him personal standing."

Solicitor General Theodore Olson, the Bush administration lawyer arguing for the school district, said that the mother was concerned that her daughter had been "thrust into the vortex of this constitutional case."

He said the Pledge of Allegiance should be upheld as a "ceremonial, patriotic exercise."

A new poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly support the reference to God. Almost nine in 10 people said the reference to God belongs in the pledge despite constitutional questions about the separation of church and state, according to an Associated Press poll.

Dozens of people camped outside the court on a cold night, bundled in layers and blankets, to be among the first in line to hear the historic case. "I just wanted to have a story to tell my grandkids," said Aron Wolgel, a junior from American University.

More than 100 supporters of the pledge began the day reciting the pledge and emphasizing the words "under God." Some supporters of the California father, outnumbered about four-to-one, shouted over the speeches of pledge proponents. They carried signs with slogans like "Democracy Not Theocracy."

God was not part of the original pledge written in 1892. Congress inserted it in 1954, after lobbying by religious leaders during the Cold War. Since then, it has become a familiar part of life for a generation of students.

Newdow compared the controversy to the issue of segregation in schools, which the Supreme Court took up 50 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education.

"Aren't we a better nation because we got rid of that stuff?" Newdow, a 50-year-old lawyer and doctor arguing his own case at the court, asked before the argument.

The AP poll, conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs, found college graduates were more likely than those who did not have a college degree to say the phrase "under God" should be removed. Democrats and independents were more likely than Republicans to think the phrase should be taken out.

Justices could dodge the issue altogether. They have been urged to throw out the case, without a ruling on the constitutional issue, because of questions about whether Newdow had custody when he filed the suit and needed the mother's consent.

Absent from the case is one of the court's most conservative members, Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites), who bowed out after he criticized the ruling in Newdow's favor during a religious rally last year. Newdow had requested his recusal.

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

___

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites): http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: antheism; antigod; atheist; childcustody; childcustodycase; freedomfromreligion; freedum; god; howdidhegethere; lawsuitabuse; newdow; onenationindivisible; pledge; religion; religiousintolerance; scotus; separation; unconstitutional; undergod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-123 next last
Pray tell, how did he get here?
1 posted on 03/24/2004 10:33:48 AM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

With the Supreme Court in the background, pro-Pledge of Allegiance supporters, from left, Gorman Dull, of Altoona, Pa., Frank Basciani, and Robert Hives, of Manchester, N.H., and others, take part in a demonstration Wednesday, March 24, 2004, as the court was hearing arguments from a California father who objected to the daily pledges in his 9-year-old daughter's classroom. (AP Photo/Mauel Balce Ceneta)

With the Supreme Court in the background, pro-Pledge of Allegiance supporters, from left, Gorman Dull, of Altoona, Pa., Frank Basciani, and Robert Hives, of Manchester, N.H., and others, take part in a demonstration Wednesday, March 24, 2004, as the court was hearing arguments from a California father who objected to the daily pledges in his 9-year-old daughter's classroom. (AP Photo/Mauel Balce Ceneta)


2 posted on 03/24/2004 10:34:51 AM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi Mac ... Support Our Troops! ... Thrash the demRats in November!!! ... Beat BoXer!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Protesters gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) in Washington March 24, 2004 as the court hears arguments in a case deciding the use of the phrase 'under God' in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether the words 'under God' must be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance during its recitation in public schools, an important case on church-state separation. REUTERS/Win McNamee


3 posted on 03/24/2004 10:36:04 AM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi Mac ... Support Our Troops! ... Thrash the demRats in November!!! ... Beat BoXer!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Supporters gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) in Washington March 24, 2004 as the court hears arguments in a case deciding the use of the phrase 'under God' in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether the words 'under God' must be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance during its recitation in public schools, an important case on church-state separation. REUTERS/Win McNamee


4 posted on 03/24/2004 10:37:35 AM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi Mac ... Support Our Troops! ... Thrash the demRats in November!!! ... Beat BoXer!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I think people who don't believe there is a God are offensive, but we don't ban them.
5 posted on 03/24/2004 10:38:24 AM PST by anonymous_user (Proof once and post twice, or is it proof twice and post once?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
This Newdow clown is only after one thing: fame. He's a career trouble maker and putting him in front of the SCOTUS is the worst thing we could have done. Thanks alot 9th Cirus.
6 posted on 03/24/2004 10:38:27 AM PST by jtminton (T.R.O.P. is tripe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Why should this person be imposing his beliefs on others?
7 posted on 03/24/2004 10:38:55 AM PST by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
This atheist does not find the pledge offensive or unconstituitional. All non-religious folks such as myself need to come to terms with the fact that this country was founded by Christians and I don't believe Christians in America have ever been a threat to the non-religious.
8 posted on 03/24/2004 10:39:26 AM PST by miloklancy (The biggest problem with the Democrats is that they are in office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Democrats and independents were more likely than Republicans to think the phrase should be taken out.

Real shocker there.

9 posted on 03/24/2004 10:40:14 AM PST by John Thornton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
This guy Newdow said he would drop the case if he got custody of his daughter.
10 posted on 03/24/2004 10:41:21 AM PST by TheEaglehasLanded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Newdow has milked his 15 seconds of fame to death. Too bad a countersuit can't be brought against Newdow for wasting taxpayers money.
11 posted on 03/24/2004 10:42:28 AM PST by lilylangtree (Veni, Vidi, Vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Is removing "In God We Trust" from our money far behind if the pledge gets changed?
12 posted on 03/24/2004 10:44:18 AM PST by dsmatuska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Michael Newdow. . .

is an idiot.

13 posted on 03/24/2004 10:45:01 AM PST by MEGoody (Kerry - isn't that a girl's name? (Conan O'Brian))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anonymous_user
I think people who don't believe there is a God are offensive,

Why is it offensive?
14 posted on 03/24/2004 10:45:13 AM PST by newcats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: miloklancy
I don't believe Christians in America have ever been a threat to the non-religious.

Then you would be wrong. Christians have a rich history of killing or driving off people who do not believe as they do. Historically, one could go back to the Crusades, but one need not go back that far; even in US history. I offer this link as evidence that Christians were not nearly as tolerant as it is today.

15 posted on 03/24/2004 10:47:19 AM PST by Hodar (With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: miloklancy
All non-religious folks such as myself need to come to terms with the fact that this country was founded by Christians and I don't believe Christians in America have ever been a threat to the non-religious.

Thank you for pointing out that crucial fact. I'm curious, do they still have witnesses swear on the bible in court? I mean, you take the pledge, the references to God on our money (as shown above), and I'm sure many other places that there are references to God in our society as a matter of daily life. This country was indeed founded by Christian pilgrims - shame to eradicate all reference to our beginnings.

16 posted on 03/24/2004 10:47:36 AM PST by momfirst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Responding to the fact that the phrase "...under God..." was added unanimously by the Congress in 1954, the self-professed atheist said, "That's only because no atheists can be elected to office."

Everyone, altogether now, Hmmmmmmmmmm.
17 posted on 03/24/2004 10:48:34 AM PST by Chummy (Republican Attack Squad HQ: "crooked, lying, you know, an enemy to liberals"(tm))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

FRom the American Spectator

Harold Johnson
March 23, 2004

Father Doesn’t Know Best

SACRAMENTO -- Tomorrow the United States Supreme Court hears a lawsuit that features two parents embroiled in a cross between "Family Feud" and "Kramer v. Kramer." It's the Pledge of Allegiance case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. The media coverage is playing up the marquee controversy in the litigation: Whether the words "under God" must be removed from the Pledge, as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered two years ago. But a family-law dispute also looms large: Can a father without legal custody sue to "protect" his daughter from the Pledge -- when the mother is adamant that the girl should continue reciting the familiar words in her public school?

The Supreme Court asked for both questions to be briefed and it must address the father's "standing," or legal authority to bring the lawsuit, first. Without even getting to the issue of the Pledge’s constitutionality, the Supreme Court can and should put a halt to Newdow’s case right there.

Michael Newdow is the father, a Sacramento emergency room doctor who has made himself the nation's most famous atheist. Newdow is currently juggling three legal actions to eject God from every corner of the Public Square. One would get rid of Congress's chaplains. Another takes aim at the Rev. Franklin Graham's prayer to Jesus at President Bush's inauguration. The third targets the Pledge.

Newdow's daughter was his prop for getting his anti-Pledge jihad before a judge. Now nine, she attends school in the Elk Grove district south of Sacramento, where teachers lead the Pledge every morning for students who wish to take part. Four years ago, Newdow filed a federal lawsuit objecting to this practice, both on his daughter's behalf and in his own name as her father. In 2002, the Ninth Circuit confirmed its reputation for judicial joyriding by siding with Newdow against the school district. A three-judge panel ruled, 2-1, that saying the Pledge, with "under God," in public school violates the First Amendment by getting government into the religion business.

No one objected more strenuously to this than Sandra Banning of Elk Grove, the mother of Newdow’s daughter. During much of the life of the lawsuit, Banning had sole legal custody of the girl. According to the California Family Code, "sole legal custody" means "the right and the responsibility to make the decisions relating to the health, education, and welfare of a child." Even now, when Newdow and Banning share custody, Banning is the final decision-maker about the girl's schooling and welfare.

Banning "has always believed -- and has taught her child -- that the Pledge [with "under God" intact] embodies an important expression of American ideals," according to a brief that she has submitted to the Supreme Court. Authored by former Solicitor General Kenneth Starr, among others, the brief calls the Pledge "an integral part of the fabric of our society" and "part of the American tradition of inclusiveness -- one that reflects the democratic beliefs of a diverse society."

As for Newdow's crusade, Banning is "profoundly concerned" that his lawsuit would "force all public schools to banish any statement that might be construed as a reference to religious values, no matter how benign, latitudinarian, or important that expression may be to the inculcation of civic virtue." The Banning brief urges that Newdow "not be permitted to use [their daughter] as a surrogate for his own private agenda of imposing certain beliefs on the Nation's schoolchildren."


IF NEWDOW DID NOT HAVE ultimate say in his daughter's education, how did the appellate court rationalize letting his lawsuit go forward? Through a selective reading of precedent that rivals the Ninth Circuit's censorship of the Pledge in its audacity. Can a noncustodial parent sue to calibrate how much religion his child may be exposed to, at school or anywhere else? The answer lies with state-level family and custody law. But instead of applying California case law in a straightforward way, the Ninth Circuit did a cut and paste job to get the desired result.

The justices leaned heavily on a 1980 California Court of Appeals ruling, Murga v. Peterson, which held that a noncustodial parent may be involved in the child's religious activities; they conveniently passed over Murga's statement that "the custodial parent undoubtedly has the right to make ultimate decisions concerning the child's religious upbringing." (Italics added.)

In response to this twisting of precedent, former California Supreme Court Justice Joseph Grodin has called on the Supreme Court to kick Newdow back to the Ninth Circuit. He wants the appellate court to be ordered to ask the California Supreme Court for a ruling on Newdow's standing to sue -- something the Ninth Circuit should have done to begin with, out of deference to the state judiciary on matters of state law.

The Ninth Circuit’s attempt to find standing for Newdow -- a noncustodial parent at the time he was trying to use his status as a father to advance his atheism -- carries broad and disturbing implications. Drafting and interpreting family law policy has traditionally been a domain for the states. By imposing its own arbitrary imprint on California law relating to child custody, making itself the Oracle of a parent's rights, the court points in an ominous direction -- towards "federalizing" family law, arrogating yet more power to unelected federal judges.

If the Supreme Court recognizes the danger in taking sensitive questions of domestic relations away from state legislators and state jurists, it will give the California precedents a less "creative" reading than the Ninth Circuit insisted upon -- and toss out the Newdow case for want of standing. Alternatively, it could follow Justice Grodin's suggestion and ask California's high court for an opinion on Dr. Newdow's right to sue. Either of these options might be portrayed as "avoiding" issues of church and state, but in fact they're the only paths open if the Court wants to affirm allegiance to principles of federalism and local control.


Harold Johnson is an attorney in Sacramento with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which has submitted a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the Elk Grove Unified School District.

18 posted on 03/24/2004 10:49:04 AM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi Mac ... Support Our Troops! ... Thrash the demRats in November!!! ... Beat BoXer!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: newcats
I just think that stupid, attention seeking behavior ought to be considered unconstitutional. SOme people are overeducated to the point where they lose touch with reality and reason.

Why is murder illegal, again?

Oh, yeah, now I remember, just had to look at the 10 commandments hanging in SCOTUS.
19 posted on 03/24/2004 10:50:05 AM PST by IAmNotAnAnimal (This tagline is currently experiencing technical problems, press 1 for...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded; NormsRevenge
This guy Newdow said he would drop the case if he got custody of his daughter.

You mean this is just a child custody pissing contest??

20 posted on 03/24/2004 10:50:48 AM PST by Old Sarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"Aren't we a better nation because we got rid of that stuff?" Newdow, a 50-year-old lawyer and doctor arguing his own case at the court, asked before the argument.


You cannot compare this to civil rights. Civil liberties aren't in violation here. He is an advocate forcing his minority views on the rest of society.
21 posted on 03/24/2004 10:50:55 AM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
"Michael Newdow. . .


is an idiot."


...needs all of our prayers.
22 posted on 03/24/2004 10:51:07 AM PST by Chummy (Republican Attack Squad HQ: "crooked, lying, you know, an enemy to liberals"(tm))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
And your point is???
23 posted on 03/24/2004 10:52:07 AM PST by IAmNotAnAnimal (This tagline is currently experiencing technical problems, press 1 for...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
..your point is taken, however it is flawed, unless you intend to portray Mormons as "non-religious."
24 posted on 03/24/2004 10:52:33 AM PST by Chummy (Republican Attack Squad HQ: "crooked, lying, you know, an enemy to liberals"(tm))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jtminton
"He's a career trouble maker"

Saw a good program on Court TV last night about Madlyn O'Hare being knocked-off back in '95.

25 posted on 03/24/2004 10:53:13 AM PST by Deguello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: writer33
tryanny of the minority
26 posted on 03/24/2004 10:53:29 AM PST by IAmNotAnAnimal (This tagline is currently experiencing technical problems, press 1 for...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Prediction: four to four decision. This whole case is based on a lie, since both the child and the mother(the legal guardian) did not object to the pledge.

The history of the Pledge of Allegiance:

On September 8, 1892 a Boston-based youth magazine "The Youth's Companion" published a 22-word recitation for school children to use during planned activities the following month to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of America. Under the title "The Pledge to the Flag", the composition was the earliest version of what we now know as the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

The October 11, 1892 Columbus Day celebration of the 400th Anniversary of the discovery of America was planned for years in advance, and anticipated much as modern Americans look forward to and plan for the advent of a new century. The United States had recovered from most of the effects of its Civil War that began 30 years earlier, and people from around the world were flocking to the "Land of Opportunity". The previous year almost a half million immigrants had entered the United States through the Barge Office in Battery Park, New York and on New Years day of 1892 the new Federal Bureau of Receiving's station at Ellis Island had opened.

Two men interested in both education and planned Columbus Day celebrations around our Nation's 44 states were Francis Bellamy and James Upham. To this day it is still unknown which of the two men actually authored the words that were to become the Pledge of Allegiance. It was published anonymously and not copyrighted. James Upham was an employee of the Boston publishing firm that produced "The Youth's Companion" in which it first appeared. Francis Bellamy was an educator who served as chairman of the National committee of educators and civic leaders who were planning the Columbus Day activities. What we do know for certain is that the words first appeared in the September 8, 1892 issue of "The Youth's Companion", and a month later more than 12 million school children recited the words for the first time in schools across the nation. Our Pledge of Allegiance was born, but like anything new, it took many years to "reach maturity", and underwent several changes along the way. That first Pledge of Allegiance read:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

October 11, 1892


After the Columbus Day celebration the Pledge to the Flag became a popular daily routine in America's public schools, but gained little attention elsewhere for almost 25 years. Finally, on Flag Day - June 14, 1923, the Pledge received major attention from adults who had gathered for the first National Flag Conference in Washington, D.C. Here their Conference agenda took note of the wording in the Pledge. There was concern that, with the number of immigrants now living in the United States, there might be some confusion when the words "My Flag" were recited. To correct this the pledge was altered to read:

I pledge allegiance to my the
Flag of the United States,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

June 14, 1923


The following year the wording was changed again to read:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

June 14, 1924


The Pledge of Allegiance continued to be recited daily by children in schools across America, and gained heightened popularity among adults during the patriotic fervor created by World War II. It still was an "unofficial" pledge until June 22, 1942 when the United States Congress included the Pledge to the Flag in the United States Flag Code (Title 36). This was the first Official sanction given to the words that had been recited each day by children for almost fifty years. One year after receiving this official sanction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite the Pledge as part of their daily routine. In 1945 the Pledge to the Flag received its official title as:

The Pledge of Allegiance

The last change in the Pledge of Allegiance occurred on June 14 (Flag Day), 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words "under God". As he authorized this change he said:

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."


This was the last change made to the Pledge of Allegiance. The 23 words what had been initially penned for a Columbus Day celebration now comprised a Thirty-one profession of loyalty and devotion to not only a flag, but to a way of life....the American ideal. Those words now read:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
June 14, 1954



27 posted on 03/24/2004 10:53:35 AM PST by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1/5 1st Mar Div. Nam 69&70 Semper Fi http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
You link notes that the Mormons were considered armed and dangerous. Thats hardly a ringing endorsement of your point.
28 posted on 03/24/2004 10:53:53 AM PST by Adder (Can we bring back stoning? Please?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: momfirst
I'm curious, do they still have witnesses swear on the bible in court?

It's not required. All you have to do is raise your right hand and swear (or affirm) that you'll tell the truth.

29 posted on 03/24/2004 10:54:01 AM PST by Modernman (Chthulu for President! Why Vote for the Lesser Evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
I don't believe Christians in America have ever been a threat to the non-religious.

Then you would be wrong. Christians have a rich history of killing or driving off people who do not believe as they do. Historically, one could go back to the Crusades, but one need not go back that far; even in US history. I offer this link as evidence that Christians were not nearly as tolerant as it is today.


Sadly, that's true.

Simeon Janovsky, former administrator of the Kodiak colony during the early 1800's, wrote the following in one of his letters:

"On another occassion, I was relating to him (St Herman) how the spanish in California had imprisoned 14 Aleuts, and how the Jesuits were forcing all of them to accept the Catholic Faith. "But this Aleut would not agree under any circumstances, saying 'We are Christians.'

"The Jesuits protested, 'That is not true, you are heretics and schismatics. If you do not agree the accept our faith then we will torture all of you.' "Then the Aleuts were place in cells until evening; two to a cell. At night the Jesuits came to the prison with lanterns and lighted candles. They began to persuade the Aleuts in the cell once again to accept the Catholic faith. 'We are Christians,' was the answer of the Aleuts, 'and we will not change our Faith.'

"Then the Jesuits began to torture them, at first the one while his companion was the witness. They cut the toes off his feet, one joint - and then the other...And then they cut the first joint on the fingers of the hands, and then the other joint. Afterwards, they cut off his feet and his hands; the blood flowed. The martyr endured all and steadfastly insisted on one thing: 'I am a Christian!'

"In such suffering he bled to death. The Jesuits promised to torture to death his comrades also on the next day. But that night an order was received from Monterey stating that the imprisoned Aleuts were to be released immediately, and sent there under escort. Therefore, in the morning all were dispatched to Monterey with the exception of the martyred Aleut.

"This was related to me by a witness, the same Aleut who was the companion of the tortured Aleut. Afterwards, he escaped from imprisonment, and I reported this incident to the supreme authorities in St. Petersburg.

"When I finished my story, Father Herman asked, 'And how did they call the Martyred Aleut?'

"I answered, 'Peter, I do not remember his family name,' The Elder stood up before an icon, reverently made the sign of he Cross, and pronounced, 'Holy newly-martyred Peter, pray to God for us!'"

http://www.sthermans.ca/resources/aleut.html
30 posted on 03/24/2004 10:54:15 AM PST by dsmatuska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: IAmNotAnAnimal
SOme people are overeducated to the point where they lose touch with reality and reason.

That has nothing to do with my question.
Thank you Mr. Strawman.
31 posted on 03/24/2004 10:54:17 AM PST by newcats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: newcats
I think people who don't believe there is a God are offensive

Right, that's not fair. I find THIS GUY offensive.
32 posted on 03/24/2004 10:54:51 AM PST by anonymous_user (Proof once and post twice, or is it proof twice and post once?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Anyone seeing the link on Drudge? Pledge of Allegiance, 'Under God' Backed at US Supreme Court...
33 posted on 03/24/2004 10:55:13 AM PST by God'sgrrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Teh SC could sidestep it and throw out the case by declaring that Newdow has no standing to bring the suit but this would only waste time and money as I am sure that the ACLU has God and America haters stacked up 100 deep just itching to please Satan and would have a new case filed tomorrow.
34 posted on 03/24/2004 10:56:06 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Wrong, your link relates to what I see as an inter-religious dispute. Although many may disagree, I believe the Mormons were a Christian cult that later became a bonifide church. Mormons are by no means non-religious. I have never seen historical accounts in America of the persecution of the non-religious.
35 posted on 03/24/2004 10:56:15 AM PST by miloklancy (The biggest problem with the Democrats is that they are in office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I wonder how this was allowed to come before the US Supreme Court in the manner that it came about? Common sense and decency have all been thrown out of America. It just seems like there were lies and deceit that brought this about. I am appalled. Our Founding Fathers intended that one religion should not rule; not throw out the freedom of religion. I believe that is clear to the majority. Let's hope the Supreme Court Justices who have their very jobs because of our country, warts and all, understand this.
36 posted on 03/24/2004 10:57:41 AM PST by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: anonymous_user
Nice tap dancing there...Spin it baby....
37 posted on 03/24/2004 10:57:42 AM PST by newcats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: IAmNotAnAnimal
Don't you know it. This redundant argument is used when liberals try to degrade something.
38 posted on 03/24/2004 10:58:35 AM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"That's only because no atheists can be elected to office," Newdow responded.

What a whiner, don't think he earned points on that comment.

39 posted on 03/24/2004 10:59:32 AM PST by Godzilla (When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: momfirst
I believe there are alternative options for non-religious individuals when taking the oath in a court of law. I'm not sure on the specifics though. I'am disturbed by the forced secularist agenda in our society. If it isn't broken don't fix it. I don't think there was great strife between the religious and non-religious in this country in the past. But I do think this forced secularism stuff will tear people apart.
40 posted on 03/24/2004 11:00:36 AM PST by miloklancy (The biggest problem with the Democrats is that they are in office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: freekitty
I wonder how this was allowed to come before the US Supreme Court in the manner that it came about?

Blame the 9th Circuit for this mess. I wonder how many SCOTUS Justices voted to grant cert. Probably most, if not all. If they didn't grant cert, there would have been a major split between the 9th Circuit and the other Circuits.

41 posted on 03/24/2004 11:00:48 AM PST by Modernman (Chthulu for President! Why Vote for the Lesser Evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Below is a link to an interesting website which deals with the socialist roots of the Pledge:


http://members.ij.net/rex/pledge1.html

42 posted on 03/24/2004 11:02:34 AM PST by society-by-contract
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newcats
I wasn't replying to any question, just felt like committing an Ad Hominem attack (there really is irony here if you look deep)
43 posted on 03/24/2004 11:02:37 AM PST by IAmNotAnAnimal (This tagline is currently experiencing technical problems, press 1 for...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dsmatuska
Is removing "In God We Trust" from our money far behind if the pledge gets changed?

Actually, Newdow first filed a suit against the Federal government to have "In God We Trust" removed from our currency, but dropped that case in favor of this one because he thought he could win this one easier - it's for the children after all...

I work for the Elk Grove school district, and this is a very conservative area for California. No one here wants him to win. (BTW, Newdow does not live in Elk Grove, he lives in Sacramento - his daughter and her mother live here).

44 posted on 03/24/2004 11:02:39 AM PST by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge
"You mean this is just a child custody pissing contest??"

(1) Newdow likes having his mug on TV. It's good for his practice.
(2) He is using this as a way to get back at his ex-wife.
(3) It's a way of compensating for having a small penis.
45 posted on 03/24/2004 11:04:11 AM PST by beelzepug ((growing more confused by the minute))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded
Isn't extortion illegal, too?
46 posted on 03/24/2004 11:04:29 AM PST by Polyxene (Too bad ignorance isn't painful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Adder
You link notes that the Mormons were considered armed and dangerous. Thats hardly a ringing endorsement of your point.

You are correct, the Mormons were armed; but more dangerous to rabbits, squirrels and deer than to the general population. Despite having an extermination order placed upon them, being forced at gun-point to leave their homes; the Mormons were then called upon to fight in the Civil war against the Confederacy (which they did).

The Mormons fled to Utah, where they were able to celebrate the 1st Admendment, but historically speaking, not without other outside 'Christian' harassment.

My point is that Christians cannot say "But we have never bothered them", as that statement is false, and patently untrue. Christians have a rich history of forcing others to their will. Now, the shoe is being placed upon the other foot (and again, historically speaking) once again.

Is the athiest correct in his approach? IMHO, no.

47 posted on 03/24/2004 11:09:16 AM PST by Hodar (With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
A bit more on Conservative Hero Francis Bellamy. (Francis was Ralph's brother.)
48 posted on 03/24/2004 11:13:15 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: newcats
Nice reply. Chat with yourself.
49 posted on 03/24/2004 11:13:26 AM PST by anonymous_user (Proof once and post twice, or is it proof twice and post once?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative
I work for the Elk Grove school district, and this is a very conservative area for California. No one here wants him to win.

That's good to know. Sometimes the minority screams so loud it drowns out the majority, skewing the whole scene. Let me re-phrase that, MOST times....

50 posted on 03/24/2004 11:18:35 AM PST by momfirst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-123 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson