Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional

[Torog]

Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional
September 15, 2005 4:08 AM EDT

SAN FRANCISCO - An atheist seeking to strike the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools has won a major battle in his quest to force the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue again.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton sided with atheist Michael Newdow in ruling Wednesday that the pledge's reference to God violates the rights of children in three school districts to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

The latest decision could set up another church-state showdown at a time when the Supreme Court is in flux. John Roberts, who would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice, is undergoing confirmation hearings, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is retiring when a successor is confirmed.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.

Newdow is hoping to get the high court to remove the pledge's reference to God and restore its pre-1954 wording, "one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

"All it has to do is put the pledge as it was before, and say that we are one nation, indivisible, instead of dividing us on religious basis," Newdow told The Associated Press.

Karlton said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts in Sacramento County, where the plaintiffs' children attend.

The order would not extend beyond those districts unless it is affirmed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in which case it could apply to nine western states, or the Supreme Court, which would apply to all states.

Superintendent Steven Ladd of Elk Grove Unified School District said the pledge will be recited until the school receives the judge's restraining order, which could happen any day.

"Our board has long supported the Pledge of Allegiance as an appropriate patriotic exercise for willing students," he said.

Karlton, appointed to the Sacramento bench by President Carter, wrote that the case concerned "the ongoing struggle as to the role of religion in the civil life of this nation" and added that his opinion "will satisfy no one involved in that debate."

In the Supreme Court's 5-3 ruling dismissing Newdow's previous case, justices Rehnquist, O'Connor and Clarence Thomas accused the majority of using Newdow's standing to dodge the harder constitutional issue. In their dissent, they said they would have upheld "under God" as constitutional.

The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.

"It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made," said fund attorney Jared Leland.

The decisions by Karlton and the appeals court conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.

Professors, politicians, pundits, religious groups and others immediately weighed in on the latest decision. Richard Ellis, a Willamette University politics professor who wrote "To the Flag: The Unlikely History of the Pledge of Allegiance," said the stakes are high.

"For some people, the pledge is a statement that the United States is a chosen nation, that the United States is a nation under God, that it is God's chosen nation," Ellis said. "For others," he said, "it reflects their belief in God."

For Newdow, that's precisely the problem.

"Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and say, 'We are one nation that denies God exists,'" he said.

"I think that everybody would not be sitting here saying, 'Oh, what harm is that?' They'd be furious. And that's exactly what goes on against atheists. And it shouldn't."

Torog Reviewed by Torog on 09-15-2005. Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional September 15, 2005 4:08 AM EDT SAN FRANCISCO - An atheist seeking to strike the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools has won a major battle in his quest to force the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue again. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton sided with atheist Michael Newdow in ruling Wednesday that the pledge's reference to God violates the rights of children in three school districts to be "free from a Rating: 5

[Psycho4Bud]

This is the type of this which wastes the courts time an costs us all money. I mean really, it's our Pledge of Allegiance! If these parents are so concerned about this are they watching what TV is being viewed at home by the child to make sure he/she stays clear of God refrences and why can't the child just leave the classroom until this is done?
Next thing well have to do is insert all the different Gods into the Pledge just to make sure that we cover all religions equally!
Imagine it....One Nation, Under God..Allah...Buddah..Satan...
WHAT A WASTE of time and resources!!!

[amsterdam]

very,very,very sad.


shit like this makes me so pissed.

[nicholasstanko]

i agree with you guys...which is AMAZING.


it's the same bullshit that contributes to the downfall of America. Everyone gets offended and then people get offended by others getting offended.


stay home and pray to who you want, but in school shut the fuck up and pay respect to the founding fathers. that's life, god damnit! we all have to go through things we dont approve of or dont like at all!


fucking sissies.

[GHoSToKeR]

I have no feelings towards this, because we don't have the pledge or anything similar where I live, so this has nothing to do with me. But, this does make me wonder... if Christianity was the minority religion in America, and Buddhism was the majority religion, would you want to swear your allegiance to Buddha every morning, or make a pledge that states "under Buddha".??

Under buddha.. that must suck.. he's a pretty hefty guy!

[GHoSToKeR]

Don'#t get me wrong, i'm not saying that this judge is right. He's probably just another guy stuck too fdar up his own ass, trying to make a difference when all he's doing is pissing everyone off.... a real "liberal". lol But, i'm just trying to make you guys see it from a different angle.

[Fengzi]

Yep, I agree too. And I'm an aethiest!! I will agree that it would be wrong for public scools to make children say a specific prayer out loud but this isn't the case. It's a pledge of allegiance to the country, not to God himself. I've always seen it as tradition more than anything else. Just words, that all.

This is in our local news a lot since the guy who started it is from San Fran. When you hear this guy talk its obvious he's just some arogant asshole trying to make a name for himself by stirring up trouble. I can imagine his next move will be trying to get the "In God We Trust" off of our currency.

The whole situation kind of reminds me of a discussion I had with a Buddhist monk a while back. I had to go an interview monks at a local Thai Buddhist temple for a paper I was doing for an Eastern Religions class. At that time there was a bunch of controversy here in San Jose about a statue that was put up in the city's main park. It was meant to be a symbol of the city's Hispanic population and was of the snake god Queztacoatl. A group of fundamentalist Christians were protesting it saying it was evil and didn't belong in a public park. I asked the monks what they thought about it and they said the statue was only a piece of stone and as such had no capacity for evil. The only "evil" was what was being generated by those who were calling it "evil". For if they had not labled it as so, the "evil" would not exist. So, back to the issue at hand, the words "One nation under God" are only religious and/or offensive if the person stating or listening to them chooses them to be so. otherwise they are just words.



Does this make any sense or am I just rambling???

[nicholasstanko]

I have no feelings towards this, because we don't have the pledge or anything similar where I live, so this has nothing to do with me. But, this does make me wonder... if Christianity was the minority religion in America, and Buddhism was the majority religion, would you want to swear your allegiance to Buddha every morning, or make a pledge that states "under Buddha".??

Under buddha.. that must suck.. he's a pretty hefty guy!

if the history of the country was based on the founding fathers praying to buddha, then the same applies. christianity isnt some superior religion. its the same crock of shit as wahabbism or voodoo....all speculation relying on the manipulation of the weak-minded to survive.

[nicholasstanko]

Yep, I agree too. And I'm an aethiest!! I will agree that it would be wrong for public scools to make children say a specific prayer out loud but this isn't the case. It's a pledge of allegiance to the country, not to God himself. I've always seen it as tradition more than anything else. Just words, that all.

This is in our local news a lot since the guy who started it is from San Fran. When you hear this guy talk its obvious he's just some arogant asshole trying to make a name for himself by stirring up trouble. I can imagine his next move will be trying to get the "In God We Trust" off of our currency.

The whole situation kind of reminds me of a discussion I had with a Buddhist monk a while back. I had to go an interview monks at a local Thai Buddhist temple for a paper I was doing for an Eastern Religions class. At that time there was a bunch of controversy here in San Jose about a statue that was put up in the city's main park. It was meant to be a symbol of the city's Hispanic population and was of the snake god Queztacoatl. A group of fundamentalist Christians were protesting it saying it was evil and didn't belong in a public park. I asked the monks what they thought about it and they said the statue was only a piece of stone and as such had no capacity for evil. The only "evil" was what was being generated by those who were calling it "evil". For if they had not labled it as so, the "evil" would not exist. So, back to the issue at hand, the words "One nation under God" are only religious and/or offensive if the person stating or listening to them chooses them to be so. otherwise they are just words.



Does this make any sense or am I just rambling???

well you are rambing...but you do make alot of sense...the same rhetoric applies to "racism"/

[Fengzi]

Under buddha.. that must suck.. he's a pretty hefty guy!

Could be worse. It could always be One Nation Under Ganesh