CA court strikes down pledge

[Lunar Shadow]

Finally CA is coming to its senses

Quote:

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A California atheist who last year lost a Supreme Court fight to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance on Wednesday won an initial round as he revived his cause in the courts.

A U.S. district court rejected a motion to dismiss his case to get the words excised from the pledge, recited by millions of schoolchildren every day, citing the precedent of an earlier ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In June 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Californian atheist Michael Newdow could not challenge the pledge's phrase "under God" on behalf of his daughter because he did not have full legal control over her.

Newdow immediately filed a new federal case in which he offered to represent two families against the Elk Grove Unified School District, the same Sacramento-area district he had previously sued.

In the Wednesday decision, Judge Lawrence Karlton said: "The court concludes that it is bound by the Ninth Circuit's previous determination that the school district's policy with regard to the pledge is an unconstitutional violation of the children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

In effect, the decision reopens the way for Newdow and others to argue the merits of the case before higher courts. The Supreme Court did not decide on that when it ruled Newdow did not have standing to bring the case.

click here for source

[Lunar Shadow]

and no big surprise it is already on appeal the 9th Circut court of appeals (one of the most liberal courts in the country) will make the last decision on this before it goes before the US supreme court.

IMHO either they should do away with the pledge or they should return it to they way it was originally written with out the phrase "under god". That phrase was added during the "Red Scare" and has remained since.

[RMadd]

for once, i'm partially in agreement w/ you there. i think that the addition of "under God" in the Fifties, while meaning well, does constitute (no pun intended) government endorsement/support of one religion over another. i suppose if that phrase was part of the pledge as it was first written i wouldn't have much of a problem with it; and truthfully i have no problem with it as it is now. but i certainly do see how it could ruffle the feathers of a few citizens.
i guess my main problem with this issue is newdow's right to bring suit in the first place. if i'm not mistaken, he did so because his daughter was forced to recite the pledge in class. on the surface, there seems to be nothing strange about this. however, mr. newdow, an atheist and divorcee, had lost the custody battle to his ex-wife, who had no problem with her daughter's daily comulsory recitation. so the question here is, does mr. newdow have right to bring suit on behalf of a minor over whom he has no custody? i'd like to say no, but i'm not sure what precedent & such have dictated in recent cases.

[Lunar Shadow]

the case in which you are refering to has long been thrown out... You see Newdow is an attorney and this time around he is representing a group of Atheist parents and parents of other faiths. this is and entirely different case although with the same out come he wished for his own the last time around.

[Steve]

Should we do away with our current monetary system since our currency mentions 'God' then?

[Ana4Stapp]

^
LOL!!!!!! Very good question, Steve...

[RMadd]

how long has "in god we trust" been on our currency?

[Lunar Shadow]

to answer your qestion steve I believe we should

the original "mottow" the was on the bill was "E Pluribus Unum"
the new "mottow" has been there since about 1861

Source http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/igwt1.htm

[creedsister]

[quote=RMadd]how long has "in god we trust" been on our currency? i dont mean to sound strange or anything but why did they put In God We Trust On Currency i could really freaking careless if they do away with it YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY PRAISE THE LORD PRAISE THE LORD!!!!

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Steve)

Should we do away with our current monetary system since our currency mentions 'God' then?

What I have always wanted to know.

[RMadd]

i think asking "should we do away with the current monetary system" is rather ludicrous. should we edit a few words on our money? sure, why not. ever since we've been off the gold standard, the trust (or, more appropriately, faith) in currency has been in itself, that it will remain strong. again, i feel that this, as with the pledge, constitutes government endorsement of a particular religion (namely Christianity).

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

i think asking "should we do away with the current monetary system" is rather ludicrous. should we edit a few words on our money? sure, why not. ever since we've been off the gold standard, the trust (or, more appropriately, faith) in currency has been in itself, that it will remain strong. again, i feel that this, as with the pledge, constitutes government endorsement of a particular religion (namely Christianity).

I wouldn't mind if they got rid of God refernces but I don't mind that they stay. One could make the claim that by taking God off they are endorsing atheism. Either way, there is no way you can make the claim that God only refers to the Christian God. I am sure other believers in God are not offended by the American dollar.

[Lunar Shadow]

But you see Uncertain it IS an endorsement of A god which automatically rules out the Agnostics and Atheists which violates the supposed stance the government has on religion (because of the fact that they are say in that "there is a god and we trust in him/her/it"). Sure it seems fair to anyone who believes in a god but what about the 15-20% of Americans who don't?? Just because we are a minority are we supposed to be kicked around by the system?? They did it to the Blacks, they did it to women, they are doing it to the Homosexuals and they have been doing it to the Atheists and Agnostics for over a century now. Where does it end? Do you have to be a WASP (white Anglo Saxton protestant) to get a fair deal in this county??

These are just a few questions I have when it comes to our "Great Nation"


--JESTER

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

I wouldn't mind if they got rid of God refernces but I don't mind that they stay. One could make the claim that by taking God off they are endorsing atheism. Either way, there is no way you can make the claim that God only refers to the Christian God. I am sure other believers in God are not offended by the American dollar.

two things:
1) not having "God" on there does not constitute atheism. it merely shows that a state will not endorse any particular religion over another. so, in a sense, the federal government should be atheist in that it, in and of itself, believes in no single god/deity/religion/etc.
2) well, God is the Christian name for our deity. he is different from the Jewish Yahweh in that most Christians believe in Jesus Christ as part of a Triune God. I'm not a scholar on the "make-up," if you will, of Yahweh, but i would conclude that, even if there is present a son (a savior promised many times in the OT), he has not yet been manifested as has been Jesus in Christianity. Islam, meanwhile, worships Allah. pretty much the same deity as in Judaism & Christianity, but not identical. to Muslims, Jesus is no more than a great prophet, but certainly no greater than Muhammed. so to call this "shared" deity "God" is a bit Eurocentric or Anglocentric or whatever you'd like to call it. likewise, Buddhists, Hundus, and atheists, among any other number of world religions, do not believe in the Christian God, nor in the Jewish Yahweh or the Muslim Allah, so they, too, though likely in the vast minority in the US, may well not like "in God we trust" printed on their money. just because a minority group doesn't like something doesn't mean their qualms should be overlooked by the majority; though democracy is based on the principle, more or less, of majority rule, this rule of the many does not extend to the point that the beliefs or faiths of the minority can be oppressed.

[Lunar Shadow]

Very well put Rmadd you seem to have a good grasp on the seperation that needs to exist between church and state. For if we let any religion (at this point it would be Christianity) start making the rules then this country is a failure in what it set out to do.