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/
If the SCOTUS tosses this for lack of standing to sue, all of the lower court decisions are vacated and of no further force.
If it is not thrown out, and ends up a tie, what does that mean to the 9th's ruling?
The 9th Circuit's ruling then remains in force, but only in the 9th Circuit. It does not apply to any other Circuits.
Why is murder illegal, again?Interesting...the text of the Commandments does not appear in the courtroom. The "Moses" character in the friezes is holding blank tablets.Oh, yeah, now I remember, just had to look at the 10 commandments hanging in SCOTUS.
Murder was illegal before the Ten Commandments were ever conceived of and its illegal in places where they mean nothing. In India they have many Gods and make graven images, yet murder is illegal.
-Eric
Is removing "In God We Trust" from our money far behind if the pledge gets changed?They'd have to remove "Novus Ordo Seclorum" too.
-Eric
So frickin' what!
When are you living?
And when was the last occurrence of your "evidence" that you can site?
"If it isn't broken don't fix it." Precisely why the Pledge should have remained as it originally was, without "under God" in it. Precisely why the National Motto, E Pluribus Unum, should have remained as it was, instead of "In God We Trust." The Founding Fathers could have chosen a religious motto, but they chose a secular one instead. They knew what they were doing. The U.S. went through World War I and II and the Great Depression using the Godless Pledge and "E Pluribus Unum" as the National Motto, and what was the harm? What was "broke" then about them that needed to be "fixed?" The Founders also didn't put "God" on their coins, either, and the idea was thought to be blasphemy by some in those days -- even up until Teddy Roosevelt's time, who didn't like the idea either, thinking it cheapened the idea of God.Bingo. This also supports the idea that the Founders and Framers believed in Separation.
Newdow arguing his own case bothers me. I hope he wasn't too egotistical or too ignorant to challenge the 1954 law changing the Pledge. That law was clearly based upon religious rather than secular concerns. If the Justices take one look at the debate surrounding it, the decision is at least 6-2 and might even be unanimous. At that point the Pledge reverts to the 1940 version.
If he only challenged the school saying the Pledge and not the 1954 law, they can't and won't review the law. At that point all bets are off. They won't want to throw the Pledge out of the schools, even though Congress can easily change it back.
-Eric
Then why the references to God in the Declaration of Independence and in the Articles of Confederation? And why did the first Congress bring in chaplains to cast their benediction over the sessions?
Liberal "freedom of speech": shout down those you disagree with.
Well, I guess I shouldn't be too hard on them... it's not like it's part of the same amendment or anything.
I am more than weary of the fashionable tyranny of the minority in this country. I hope the SC is, too.
This also supports the idea that the Founders and Framers believed in Separation.Why none in the Constitution?Then why the references to God in the Declaration of Independence and in the Articles of Confederation
-Eric
Hey reasonseeker. There's no reason we should take 'under God' out of the pledge. Most Americans want it in the pledge.
What secular purpose does it serve being there?
The irony is that when the Pledge is recited in public, nine times out of ten the unanimity of the recitation breaks down when some people say "under God" and the others say "indivisible".
-Eric
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.