It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Atheist Joins Others to Sue Over "Under God" In The Pledge Of Allegiance

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Michael Newdow who won an federal appellate court victory over the separation between church and state in schools regarding the words under god has filed another lawsuit in the matter. His appellate victory was overturned by the United States Supreme Court who ruled that his suit was ineligible because the child, whom he had filed the case on, mother objected. In his latest suit, eight other parents have joined his efforts.

 



story.news.yahoo.com
SAN FRANCISCO - An atheist who sued because he did not want his young daughter exposed to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance has filed another lawsuit this time with other parents.

Michael Newdow won his case more than two years ago before a federal appeals court, which said it was an unconstitutional blending of church and state for public school students to pledge to God.

In June, however, the Supreme Court dismissed the case, saying Newdow could not lawfully sue because he did not have custody of his elementary school-aged daughter and because the girl's mother objected to the lawsuit.

In the latest challenge filed Monday in Sacramento federal court, eight co-plaintiffs have joined the suit, and all are custodial parents or the children themselves, Newdow said.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


He believes that the Supreme Court should judge the case on its merits and not technicalities. Thus he is trying again with this suit. No doubt religious groups will be up in arms with their familiar drum beat of family or traditional values. However, what most fail to acknowledge is that the phrase under god was added during the cold war and did not exist prior to that.




posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Looks like the Atheists are winning nowadays. Take that religions! Whoo Whoo


Surf



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   
This all can be settled simply, atheists do not have to say the words "Under God" if they do the Pledge. Say something else, or nothing at all. No one if forcing to believe in God nor to say it. No need to remove it.



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JediMaster
This all can be settled simply, atheists do not have to say the words "Under God" if they do the Pledge. Say something else, or nothing at all. No one if forcing to believe in God nor to say it. No need to remove it.


Exactly. The Supreme Court of the United States always takes the path of least resistance, thus the dismissal on "technicalities." If this comes before them again the argument will be struck down. This is not the establishment of religion a la the Church of England, it is a free exercise of religion.



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by JediMaster
This all can be settled simply, atheists do not have to say the words "Under God"


The question is the use of it in a public school. Much like the ten commandments and the like. How is it any different that saying a non-denominational school prayer?

Seperate baby seperate



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   
I believe there is no law FredT, preventing a public school from using the word "God" as long as it does not endorse a specifc God or denounce a specific God. The use of the word "God" in the Pledge makes no referance to any specific God. Likewise it is not forcing you to believe in God or to ackknowledge his existance or lack there of.



[edit on 1-5-2005 by JediMaster]



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
However, what most fail to acknowledge is that the phrase under god was added during the cold war and did not exist prior to that.


This is the single biggest problem I have with the whole "under god" issue - it wasn't there originally. Early last year during a Congressional session Rep. James McDermott's did not place his hand over his heart and paused instead of reciting the words "under god." Congressman McDermott told reporters that neither were part of the Pledge that he had learned as a child.

Personally, I would prefer to see the Pledge return to it's original wording. At the very least, we and our schools should teach children both the original and the revised wording and let them choose for themselves what they choose to recite...if they choose to at all.

B.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by JediMaster
This all can be settled simply, atheists do not have to say the words "Under God" if they do the Pledge. Say something else, or nothing at all. No one if forcing to believe in God nor to say it. No need to remove it.



Or you could go the otherway. Take "under god" out and if people WANT to say it they can..or they can add under Buddha, or Allah, or Mithra or Zeus or Goddess. Whatever the want.


See how nice and easy that is?

There is no enemy anywhere - Lao Tse



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Voice_of Doom

Originally posted by JediMaster
This all can be settled simply, atheists do not have to say the words "Under God" if they do the Pledge. Say something else, or nothing at all. No one if forcing to believe in God nor to say it. No need to remove it.



Or you could go the otherway. Take "under god" out and if people WANT to say it they can..or they can add under Buddha, or Allah, or Mithra or Zeus or Goddess. Whatever the want.


See how nice and easy that is?

There is no enemy anywhere - Lao Tse


That can be feasible BUT it depends on how the majority goes. More and more I see the majority lose, books are banned, censored and rewritten in schools because ONE person got offended. One black student got Huck Finn kicked out of the school since he was offended by the word "'n-word'", where he did not understand the context of its use. The majority is starting to lose in a lot of cases. Anyway, back to the point it matters what the majority wants. Of course the minority loses but this gets into the debate wheter or not democracy aka "majority rule" is fascist.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   
And to think, they inserted "One nation under God" to distinguish the oath from those damn atheistic communists!



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by parrhesia
And to think, they inserted "One nation under God" to distinguish the oath from those damn atheistic communists!

Funny one. But not to get sidetracked, with all of these atheists and other folk coming after the use of "God" in many public forums, what shall happen when they attack our currency?

[edit on 1-6-2005 by JediMaster]



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   
That is a good point. Should the description "in god we trust" be eleiminated as well? In this context I have to say yes. Question. How many other currencies in the world have a reference to god in them?



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Well why though should the majority have to submit to the minority? The use of the word "God" on our money does not endorse, promote, ackknowledge the existance, or force one to believe in a God or religion or any specific one at that. Plus think of the trouble it would be to get the "offensive" currency out of circulation and create an entire new line.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Not really, new money is introduced almost daily. You would do it as a process of atrition as they do now with the new 20's and the like.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   
This is interesting:

Article



Across the country, there is a movement afoot.

It isn't using picket signs, or a flood of letters to congress, or even a lawsuit -- that's already been tried. Instead, some Atheists and separationists are taking pen in hand, and obliterating the "In God We Trust" motto from the national currency. Others are using rubber stamps, or inserting their own messages like "In Reason We Trust," or "Keep Church and State Separate." Mention religious slogans in an internet newsgroup or at a meeting and eyebrows are suddenly raised. Opinions are expressed. And there's a tame call to action, even if does only use the nearest ball-point or magic marker.

Indeed, religious graffiti on currency is one of the issues which sooner or later all of us will sound off about. It's also one of the periodic topics that ends up being vented, dissected and discussed on news groups and mailing lists. Simply put, most Atheists don't like the "In God We Trust" slogan staring at us every time we pull out our wallets or purses. It has to go. But how?


[edit on 6-1-2005 by parrhesia]



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by JediMaster
Well why though should the majority have to submit to the minority?


I never look at it like the minority rules the majority - I look at from a purely constitutional standpoint of equal protection. The constitution protects us each as individuals and prevents mob rules (think slavery or segregation). And you do make a very valid point that issues of censorship due to political correctness have gotten out of control. These are free speech issues and should be protected just as much as those who want the words "under god" removed from the Pledge. Equal protection is equal protection.

The only time the majority should ever be in complete control is with respect to voting - anything else is subject to constitutional protections.

B.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   
I personally believe in god and peaceably encourage the same but wouldn't care if they removed the phrase from the pledge of allegiance. It really degrades the notion if children and/or their parents think it's being forced on them. Those who wish to worship aren't missing anything in losing it.
As far as currency -just leave it alone. Who reads it anyway? Do they feel it's a government order? Yeeesh



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Why not just change the wording to "One nation, which may or may not be under God... " ??

I mean, the atheists can't PROVE there's no God.

If it turns out there is, and He is up in Heaven, then it would be factually correct to say we are "under God" - and therefore it would no longer be a church/state issue.


I think it's more prudent to wait and see what science comes up with before we go and change the pledge again.

We don't want to look like a nation of flip-floppers, after all.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Fred
How many other currencies in the world have a reference to god in them?

I hate to be 'droll' and all, but how many other nations feel like they have been as blessed as America?

Jedi has the crux of the entire issue. The majority rules. No one MAKES minorities say 'under God.' Why should the majority suffer something just to please PC minorities?

Brave New World, A. Huxley would love this stuff.

To those crying to 'take it (pledge) back' to what it was originally- just when was that?
How about:

By a ChristianFrancis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).
-and-
He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.

Gosh, kind of ruins the 'original' arguments doesn't it?



Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas [Bellamy's] in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'

Pretty heavy stuff here-

(personally, I don't care what someone says as a pledge. I've seen die-hard Athiests calling on God just as often as everyone else when 'hell' breaks loose)



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 02:59 AM
link   
As has been brought up noone has to say "under god" during the pledge of allegiance. I do think it odd that a specific geration of parents seem to be the ones bringing issues like this to light. Most lawsuits in America these days are better suited in an anger management course anyway; notice I said "most". If it was a majority that decided to put "under god" into the pledge when that did ocurr, and it is not against any law for a public school to never have it spoken by its students, then this seems to me to be more of an issue where one belief is legally being thrown at another. One of the most wonderful things about America is freedom of ones own religious beliefs, no matter what age. I will say that what America is fundamentally was founded by those who wanted to be able to worship "god" in their own way without being persicuted for it. I'm happy with a pledge that does or doesn't have the words "under god" in it. What I'm not happy with is the ammount of fear in America toward having to worry if your next comment won't be PC to someone else. If you are a decent person there's a likely hood you won't offend anyone else around you with the words you use. Why has the subject of this lawsuit just now become an issue? I agree anyone in this country has the right as a citizen to question even the constitution itself if they want to. Americans do need to quit whining about so many things they are not forced to be involved with. I feel though a valid argument within some of its points that this boils down to nothing more than someone whining about something noone in their same shoes has since its inception when all they have to do is not say words they do not believe in.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join