The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Dec. 4 will again hear a challenge by Michael Newdow to the Pledge of Allegiance and its phrase "under God." Newdow won his prior lawsuit against the pledge until the Supreme Court, perhaps to avoid public outrage in the 2004 presidential election year, tossed out his case on a procedural technicality. . . . Newdow's first case caused a national uproar when he initially prevailed, but Congress failed to seize the day by withdrawing jurisdiction from the courts over this issue. Instead, Congress took away from courts jurisdiction over lawsuits against gun manufacturers and, at the urging of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., over lawsuits by environmentalists against clearing brush in South Dakota. . . . The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is notoriously hostile to religion, so it could give us another anti-pledge decision. Atheism has spread in influence to where it controls many federal courts, many public schools and now even Hollywood, with the atheistic movie "The Golden Compass" promoted for Christmastime entertainment. . . . Classical music with religious names was banned at graduation by Everett School District No. 2 in Washington state. The school ordered that only "secular" music would be allowed even though there were no lyrics or words spoken, and a federal court held against the students. . . . Judge Robert S. Lasnik, who was appointed to the bench by former President Bill Clinton in 1998, wrote the decision. Lasnik was the same judge who struck down a Washington state law banning video games that demonstrated how to kill policemen and wrote in his decision that violent video games are "as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature."
Originally posted by davion
Do you want a tissue or something?
California atheist activist Michael Newdow is renewing his fight to remove reference to God from the Pledge of Allegiance, this time with a suit filed on behalf of an anonymous New Hampshire couple against a school district. . . . The couple, an agnostic and atheist with three children, say in their complaint that they "generally, deny that God exists" and contend their constitutional rights are violated when school authorities require their children to "participate in making the purely religious, monotheistic claim that the United States is 'one nation under God.'" . . . Newdow previously sued over the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge, but his claims were rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004 on technical grounds. The self-described atheist said he did not want his third-grade daughter to have to listen to the phrase "under God" in a public school. . . . Five justices, however, found Newdow did not have the legal standing to bring the case. He never married the child's mother, who has expressed support for having "under God" in the pledge.
A federal judge put a stop Thursday to enforcing a mandatory moment of silence in Illinois public schools that opponents say is an attempt to institute school prayer. . . . U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman ordered the State Board of Education not to enforce the new law while a lawsuit filed by the father of a public school student proceeds. On Wednesday, the judge issued a preliminary injunction barring the moment of silence in that student's suburban Chicago school district. . . . The practical effect of the ruling in the rest of the state's school districts will be negligible for now: The law includes no provisions for enforcement, says Matt Vanover, spokesman for the state Board of Education. . . . Gettleman said the statute is vague and might violate the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from promoting religion. . . . The judge "understands that there is no motive for a moment of silence except a religious one," says Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State
For more than a dozen years, I have been working to expose anti-Christian bias within America’s popular curriculum. But it wasn’t until I ran across a copy of Curriculum Standards for Social Studies, published by the National Council for the Social Studies under a US Department of Education grant, that I realized the force of law was now driving the agenda. . . . According to the NCSS standards, “[I]t is clear that the dominant social, economic, cultural and scientific trends that have defined the western world for five centuries are rapidly leading in new directions.” The dominant trends that defined Western civilization are of course, the Judeo/Christian worldview. So what does this mean for social studies? The NCSS explains, “The United States and its democracy are constantly evolving and in continuous need of citizens who can adapt… to meet changing circumstances. Meeting that need is the mission of the social studies.” . . . Can it be any clearer? Rather than teach America’s history and founding principles for the preservation of American liberty and Western Civilization, the new mission of social studies is to prepare our children to accept the transformation of America. In fact, the NCSS are missionaries of a new religion operating in the field of American education. Unlike Christians, these particular missionaries have government backing, free reign with captive children, and operate under the guise of “education” – and thus under the radar of most Christians.
A Maryville woman who went to court on Aug. 14 for a child custody hearing says she was persecuted because of her religious beliefs at the hands of the Blount County judicial system. . . . According to Jo Anne White, what was supposed to be a standard child custody hearing turned into an almost hour long “Bible study” in the courtroom in spite of the repeated protests of her attorney, Kevin W. Shepherd. . . . After a detailed discussion of her religious beliefs — documented in court reporter transcripts obtained by The Daily Times — and a brief recess to chambers, Blount County Circuit Court Judge W. Dale Young awarded temporary custody of White’s two children to her ex-husband. The custody will be reviewed again in Circuit Court on Dec. 11. . . . While Young questioned White about one specific aspect of her religion, attorney Craig Garrett, who represented White’s ex-husband, asked numerous probing questions about her faith. Of the 65 pages of court transcripts reviewed by The Daily Times, 41 pages deal directly with White’s religious beliefs.