Pledge of Allegiance

This morning a newscaster reported that Michael Newdow was appealing his case to SCOTUS and I got to thinking that that just didn't make any sense. He won his case in the 9th Circuit Court. You don't appeal a case you win, do you?Does anyone here know for a fact who it was that appealed the 9th Court's decision to SCOTUS? I'm thinking that it might be the school district against whom Newdow won his case. But then, I am also wondering how they could be spending taxpayers money for something like this.I'd very much appreciate any information on this from anyone who has knowledge of it.Verzem

It seems the original decision to ban the pledge was put on hold until a higher court heard the matter. CNN.com - Supreme Court accepts Pledge of Allegiance case - Oct. 15, 2003A google on {pledge of allegiance us supreme court} found plenty of information.For me, personally, group pledges are meaningless as they are properly a personal commitment that shouldn't vary whether expressed publicly or not. Any such pledge undertaken publicly without the personal commitment is meaningless, and any pledge undertaken publicly that induces a (less than full?) personal commitment where none had existed before is also {meaning less}. Mandated patriotism is no less invalid than mandated religion.There is more to this issue than restoring the pledge to it's pre-50's {communist atheist paranoia induced} change (the when and why "under god" was inserted).The word "equality" was taken out of the original pledge ...Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

AbbyLeever,Thanks for the reply. I was thinking that had to have been the school district that appealed to SCOTUS, but I'm wondering where they got the money to pay the lawyers bringing it there. If I lived in that school district, I would want them to spend the monies on the kid's education, and not on legal battles.It really is a no-brainer of a decision if you look at it objectively. All you have to do is make a simple switch and consider your opinion then.So, let's have the Pledge say:"...one nation, there is no god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."OR"....one nation, under Apollo, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."Now that you have walked in the moccasins of those who find the Pledge objectionable, if you find either of these versions objectionable to you and you wouldn't want your children reciting it; then you must stand against having any religious references in the Pledge.Next, I find it personally amazing that the fundies themselves aren't at the forefront of those objecting to having (what they claim is) their god's name used in a (supposedly) strictly non-religious way. Is not that blasphemous? When is the last time any of you Judeo-Xians read the IGWT on money and had a religious experience? Does it not cheapen the name of God? [Not that that is a real name. I believe your god's name is Yahweh. Calling him God would be like calling every person Human.] I never could figure out how every time god is mentioned, Judeo-Xians think it is talking about their god.From U. of Texas Law School Professor Douglas Laycock, on behalf of Clergy In Support of Newdow (yes, there are members of the clergy who object to having "under god" in the Pledge) we get: "If the religious portion of the Pledge is not intended as a serious affirmation of faith, then every day, government asks millions of schoolchildren to take the name of the Lord in vain."A Southern Baptist minister (sorry, but no name was given in the article I read) recently wrote: "Giving lip service to god does not advance faith, it cheapens it. It takes the language of faith, and reduces it to mere political rhetoric. Language that has the power to heal and mend should never be used so callously."To win, Elk Grove school District will have to argue that "under god" has nothing to do with any religion. In other words, they have to deny god to keep god in the Pledge.Verzem

that was my point on the patriotism too.the original did not say "under god" -- that was added during the McCarthy hysteriaand as such does not pass the "lemon test" of legislation: that if there is no secular purpose to the law then it should not be made law.The original would have included equality for: Nice, eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

why did they add it? what was the reason for it?

During the cold war, both the USSR and the US did everything they could to identify themselves as the counter of the other. Since the USSR had a state enforced policy of no religions, the US sought to define its as a country of faith. The "under god" was inserted to disguish America from the USSR.

And its addition irritated me pretty badly - poor little second-grade nerd having to re-learn the whole Pledge, when I'd just learned the former one the year before.

Hopefully, SCOTUS will do the right thing and uphold the 9th Circuit Court's decision. Even then, I think that daily recitation of the Pledge should be retired as an outdated tradition. I don't have any problem with having schoolchildren having to memorize it and maybe be able to write it down for a test. But no one should be pressured in any way to have to stand and recite it.You'd think that all would have been taken care of after Justice Robert Jackson gave his majority opinion on the Barnett case in 1943. I'd be happy to post the crowning paragraph of it if anyone is interested.Verzem

SCOTUS could declare that the addition of the words was unconstitutional -- that they serve no secular purpose.I'll wait and see. At least Scalia recused himself.

"In God we Trust" contrary to popular belief has not alway been on money it was Put on in the 1860's if I am not mistaken

Don't you love that he recused himself from this, but refuses to do so from the case where his duck-hunting buddy is a named litigant?Is he retiring soon, or what? Whenever I hear his opinions I think longingly about that stupid bill that guy introduced last week that would let Congress override judicial review. Never mind of course that it would destroy our government in a constitutional crisis.

hasn't Reinquist also written on the topic?can you see all the hardliners recusing themsleves?
ahahahahahaha
(fantasy is fun)

I bet it really ground on him (scalia) that he had to recuse himself on this one. But, he sure used bad judgement in condemning the 9th Court on its Newdow verdict before it got to SCOTUS. Perhaps this is an indication of his intelligence, or lack thereof.Does anybody reading this suppose that any fundies ever have had a religious experience when they look at money? It seems to me that they should be at the front of the line in trying to get IGWT off of our money, out of the Pledge, and away from any other non-religious application.I am a Libertarian, but when I think about the possibility of either Bush or Kerry getting to appoint a SCOTUS judge or two, I sure do hope that Kerry wins.Verzem