Here Today... Gone To Hell!

The case was brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected last year by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right 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 Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

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 hopes that will make it more likely the merits of his case will be addressed by the high court.

"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.

"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,'" Newdow 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."

Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, 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, in which case it could apply to nine western states, or the Supreme Court, which would apply to all states.

The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools, at a time when the makeup of the Supreme Court is in flux.

Wednesday's ruling comes as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts faces day three of his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice.

In July,
Sandra Day O'Connor announced her plans to retire when a successor is confirmed.

The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. 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 9th Circuit 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.

A three-judge panel of that circuit ruled that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious affirmation similar to a prayer.

"Undoubtedly, the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words `under God' contain no religious significance," Judge Karen Williams wrote for the 4th Circuit. "The inclusion of those two words, however, does not alter the nature of the pledge as a patriotic activity."

Karlton, appointed to the Sacramento bench in 1979 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."

Karlton dismissed claims that the 1954 Congressional legislation inserting the words "under God" was unconstitutional. If his ruling stands, he reasoned that the school children and their parents in the case would not be harmed by the phrase because they would no longer have to recite it at school.

Terence Cassidy, a lawyer representing the school districts, said he was reviewing the opinion and was not immediately prepared to comment.

the pledge freaked me out. I worked as a soccer coach at a summer camp last year and didnt see it coming, but every single morning regular as clockwork. And the kids refused to believe we didnt have one in britain.

As for this case, shit, just remove the words. Will it hurt to change it. Sure, the guy may be overreacting as it is but it appears he has a point and the world isn't going to implode after dropping two words.

Under God is not making childeren be scarred for life. It doesnt say under Jesus. Who is to say it only means the christian god? Aetheists are rather touchy considering they don`t believe in anything.

Ummm, atheists dont believe in god. So why should they make a pledge saying they live under god?

And they do believe in something. That there is nothing.

Atheism requires just as much faith as believing in a God.  There are no facts to support a Deity or denouce one.  It is true that Eisenhower amended the pledge in the 50s, but every piece of literature from America's founding suggests the existence of a God.  I myself am an agnostic and have no problem saying "one nation under God."  No one is being forced to say the pledge, it's always been optional.  If people are forcing people to recite the pledge, well then you have an argument.  Let's not forget however that the man who started this whole thing was a shit stirrer and his daughter which whom he claimed he was defending had no problem saying the pledge.  Some people get off to bitching.

I'm not religious and I couldn't care less that the pledge contains "under god" or that my kid has to say it in school.? But if it bothers you, this isn't the guy you want taking it to court.? He's an ass.? He doesn't care what his daughter wants, he's just trying to make a name for himself.?

They don't have to. ?I like the previous poster am not religious, but I see no problem in the pledge. ?No one is forced to say it. ?Ironically, by trying to prevent the pledge from being said there the free exercise rights of those who may wish to say it are being curtailed. ?The 9th will affirm, and then the SC will reverse. ?I do believe that there is some precedent for the decision, but I believe the court was clearly incorrect in the precedent they have set in this area. ?

I love how those on the far left can't convince their fellow citizens to change things through the legislature; instead they shop it to a liberal judge here in the Bay Area, knowing it will be affirmed by the liberal 9th circuit. ?Such hostility toward religion has no basis in the text of our Constitution, nor does it have any place in the tradition of this country. ?Yet, in the past 50 years some on the court, and on the far left, have sought to rewrite history, and to place the terms "separation of church and state" in the Constitution even though they were written by someone that had nothing to do with the constitutional convention, and are structurally historically inconsistent with our Consitution. ? ?

And all I have to say to those people who have a heartburn with saying the pledge because it has the words "one nation under God" in it and that is...do they spend US currency?  If so, have they ever took the time to read what is stamped and/or printed?  I believe it says "In God We Trust".

I don't care either.

I could be mistaken, but I believe Michael Newdow has tried to challenge that in court as well.

Oh believe me, that will certainly be the next challenge. ?I'll put my money on the ACLU bringing suit in a District Court in San Francisco. ?If only the money that was used to bring these suits was used for other purposes.

I say leave it in. It's been there for so long. You can't erase history.

I'm not sure that he would have standing to bring such a suit.  Perhaps, that was why it was dismissed.  Of course, I never heard of this suit.

The US currency will be changed one day...I think the plan is to have it resemble Monopoly money!   ;D

I just tried to find some information on it, and I guess he's said he wants to see it removed from money, but for now is concentrating on the pledge. ?So there is no suit, yet. ?But I'm sure he'll try if he thinks he can get anywhere.

The biggest irony in all of this is that the Religios Right and such will get all worked up in defense of this and, here's the catch, in the Bible in Matthew Jesus says not to pledge yourself to anything but God, certainly not a flag!

Yea, I see the irony, pretty funny.

And that justifies Judeo/Christianity? the dollar? Probably does now....

Honestly the majority of the world trades in other currencies but really I'd rather see  "I pledge to myself" than "The United States" or "God Save the Queen" kids need to learn self respect first - but all pledges are just rote-rehersal anyhow

kids are thinking about janet jackson nipple and killing hookers in GTA san andreas anyway when they do the pledge. so what the hell ....

"one nation under John Carmack ! "

What a total waste of taxpayer money. Does this same guy refuse to spend American currency as well?

Everybody grab a slice of dumbass pie!

The idea of getting children to pledge allegiance to this and that at school has always bothered me - there is something very sinister about it, whatever the wording....

The pledge and our money only had "under God" added as a supposed defense against those Godless Commies who were trying to take over the world.  The communist threat is over.  It never even was a real threat-- communism would never work in the USA.  It's time to take it out.  As an atheist, I refused to recite the pledge when we had to say it in middle school (we never said it in high school or college).  I even got kicked out of class one day for my refusal to stand and recite.

Robin Williams had it right "One nation, under Canada and above Mexico."

I prefer "One nation under ZOG."

I find the daily drone act itself, much more offensive then the word God.

question, what exactly do you believe in if you dont believe in a God?

This and that???  They are pledging allegience to our country.  Not this and that. 

What has always bothered me is the fact that many do not want to pledge allegiance to the flag.

I agree.  I don't see anything negative about having children learn respect for the flag of their country.  I'm upset that there is now a restraining order which may prevent my child from saying the pledge at all.  She's only been in school for a couple weeks and has just started to learn it.  Now its being stopped.  Its ridiculous.  I guess I could have her do it at home,  but I think its appropriate at school.

I think it loses it's meaning when said like that everyday. I certainly don't have a problem with it, but I remember many kids just mumbling away......

I have no objection to pledging to a flag and the country, but I do have a problem with saying this is "one nation under god."  This is an endorsement of a religion-- while not a specific religion in regards to a specific sect or denomination, it is a denunciation of atheists and agnostics.

This is why it was added in the first place-- to denouce Communists, where a main tenet is godlessness.

I think some of the comments show a basic misunderstanding of the pledge.  The founding fathers were mostly Christian and believed that our rights and freedoms were granted by God.  Therefore it is entirely accurate to say that this nation was created "under God".

People who buy into the seperation of church and state lie should consider this is a quote from Thomas Jefferson.

In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor.

The establishment clause of the consititution says that the government shall not establish a state church like the church of england not that the government and religion should be seperate.

That is absolutely correct.  However, many just do not understand this point.  In fact, many states had established religions when the Consitution was ratified.

I do have a fundamental problem with this too, but it does not offend me. I am not sure if I belive it denounces atheism or other religions. However this is not a nation founded on Christianity as many would like to believe, or do believe. There are many different beliefs in this country, that is in fact, what makes America...America.

What if we switched the word "God" for "Allah"...think more people would care then?

Oh boy....

It is when you guys start to re-write history that I get nervous, as should anybody who wants a basic understanding of our country and what it was founded on. Our founding fathers were not "mostly Christian" that believed "our freedoms were granted by God." This is false.

George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.

From:
George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., pp. 16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX)

John Adams It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

From:
The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC) Quoting a letter by JA to Charles Cushing Oct 19, 1756, and John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by James Peabody, p. 403 (1973, Newsweek, New York NY) Quoting letter by JA to Jefferson April 19, 1817, and in reference to the treaty, Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 311 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June, 1814.

Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:"I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." He referred to the Revelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac" and wrote:
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."

From:
Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W.W) Norton and Co. Inc. New York, NY) Quoting a letter by TJ to Alexander Smyth Jan 17, 1825, and Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 246 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to John Adams, July 5, 1814.

James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

From:
The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785.

Benjamin Franklin delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, said:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.

From:
Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Thomas Fleming, p. 404, (1972, Newsweek, New York, NY) quoting letter by BF to Exra Stiles March 9, 1970.

As I said before, I don't care if the words under god are in there or not.? It doesn't change the basic meaning and I don't think it hurts anyone.? But I would rather see those words dropped if that's what it takes to continue saying the pledge.? Right now the schools involved aren't supposed to recite the pledge at all.

Even worse, my child's school district has to spend time and money fighting this lawsuit.  I'd rather it be spent on more important things.

Me too.

Sorry SLC, can't agree with you on this one. ?You are the one being misguided by those who actually want to re-write history. ?While some of these framers did at times criticize religion in private writings, their public statements (which of course is what one should rely on when looking at the founding beliefs of a nation) are quite the contrary.

George Washington's official actions were quite the contrary:

"George Washington added to the form of Presidential oath prescribed by Art. II, ?1, cl. 8, of the Constitution, the concluding words ?so help me God.? See Blomquist, The PresidentialOath, the American National Interest and a Call for Presiprudence,
73 UMKC L. Rev. 1, 34 (2004)."

"President Washington offered the first Thanksgiving Proclamation shortly thereafter, devoting November 26, 1789 on behalf of the American people ? ?to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that is, that was, or that will be,? ? Van Orden v. Perry, ante, at 7?8 (plurality opinion)(quoting President Washington?s first Thanksgiving Proclamation), thus beginning a tradition of offering gratitude to God that continues today."


"President Washington opened his Presidency with a prayer, see Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States 1, 2 (1989), and reminded his fellow citizens at the conclusion of it that ?reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.? Farewell Address (1796), reprinted in35 Writings of George Washington 229 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1940)."

George Washington, who, in his famous Letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, wrote that,
?All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunitiesof citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent
natural rights.?

The letter concluded, by the way, with an invocation of the one God:

?May the father of all mercies scatter light and not
darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several
vocations useful here, and in his own due time and
way everlastingly happy.? Ibid.

I see how this supports your former point, but not the latter one. ?While the framers no where intended Christianity to be the only religion, they certainly thought religion would play a central role in society and government.

"President John Adams wrote to the Massachusetts Militia, ?we have no government armed with power capable
of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.?



While perhaps not a Chrisitan, Jefferson quite often invoked the name of God in his speeches and actions:

Thomas Jefferson concluded his second inaugural address by inviting his audience to pray:

?I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power and towhose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.? Inaugural Addressesof the Presidents of the United States, at 18, 22?23.

What Jefferson has inscribed in his tombstone "was his authorship of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, a governmental act which begins ?Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free . . . .? Va. Code Ann. ?57?1

"James Madison, in his first inaugural address, likewise placed his confidence ?in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed
to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future.? Id., at 25, 28."



In addition to the few you mentioned, God was invoked in public forums all of the time in the founding era.  Here some more examples:

"The SupremeCourt under John Marshall opened its sessions with the prayer, ?God save the United States and this Honorable Court.? 1 C. Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 469 (rev. ed. 1926). The First Congress instituted the practice of beginning its legislative sessions with a prayer. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S. 783, 787 (1983). The same week that Congress submitted the Establishment Clause as part of the Bill of Rights for ratification by the States, it enacted legislation providing for paid chaplains in the House and Senate. Id., at 788. The day afterthe First Amendment was proposed, the same Congress that had proposed it requested the President to proclaim ? a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed, by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many and signal favours of Almighty God.? See H. R. Jour., 1st Cong., 1st Sess. 123 (1826 ed.); see also Sen. Jour., 1st Sess., 88 (1820 ed.)"

"The same Congress also reenacted the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, 1 Stat. 50, Article III of which provided: ?Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.? Id., at 52, n. (a). And of course the First Amendment itself accords religion (and no other manner of belief) special constitutional protection."

We have two posts that have conflicting quotes.

But, the argument was that this nation was founded on Christianity. Even with your quotes, (which I'd like to see a link and read more please) there is nowhere that indicates that the people who framed this country's Constitution did so on the basis of Christianity. Hardly anything in the Constitution references Christian thought and morality;it is merely wishful thinking.

I thought you would say that.  Your argument seemed a little broader since you wrote:

Our founding fathers were not "mostly Christian" that believed "our freedoms were granted by God."

The first part of the sentence is correct; the second part is not.  What quote specifically are you referring to that contradict, perhaps I can try and explain the contradiction.

My quote were all from the recent McCreary decision, taken from Justice Scalia's dissent.  He cites all of these things in case you want to look for them in historical text.  I would suggest that you read the entire opinion, it is quite a good read.  Especially Scalia's dissent.  He actually addresses some of the conflicting quotes that Justice Stevens uses in his opinion.

Then maybe focused too much on the first part, ie Christianity.



Do you not have a link GNRNIGHTRAIN?  ;D

Sorry, Duffman

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04slipopinion.html

click on McCreary a few cases down

whatever dude..give it up!

Here is my favorite quote from that read:

"With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation?s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists?"

 ::)

Don't you think that is a little fucked up?

I think the fact that you, as well as your fellow atheist who is making such a big stink about the pledge, are so bothered by the words "one nation under God" demonstrates an underlying reservation you have about your own beliefs; or lack thereof.

I don't think a real atheist who truly believes there is no God would care if the pledge cited God or not.? No God to pledge to after all right?? Therefore the words are meaningless.

Besides, nobody is being forced to say anything.? You said yourself you don't recite the pledge.? And it isn't an endorsement of religion.? Amendment I reads:? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

In other words, the United States government cannot establish a state religion or promote a specific faith.? Besides being generic as words can be, the words"one nation under God" in the pledge does neither.

i find it incredible that you can say an atheist is lacking belief. It is a belief that there is nothing which is an incredibly strong assertion. I can explain and assert why i don't believe in a God in the same way that any follower of any other religion could do they opposite so why should i not be afforded the respect that others are?

Realizing this board has more than a few, I'm not trying to offend any atheists or agnostics here.

Whether atheists hold there is nothing to believe in or believe there is nothing, I prefer not to get into semantics.

My point is, the words "one nation under God" in the plege, on currency, etc. really isn't negative or harmful per se.? At most, it's an acknowledgement of something positive by those who recite it.

This reminds me of the negative reaction some had to The Passion of the Christ last year.? Whether it's mentioning God in the pledge of allegience or a film about Jesus, some people's response to anything religious is akin to a vampire when it sees a cross.

it's not simply a case of semantics, the fact is that an atheist believes there is nothing. Not the other way around, as it is not the same thing and is very rude to say so.

when i said afforded respect i wasn't talking in terms of the pledge (of which i don't really care). I was talking about the derisory way in which you hold and continue describe my beliefs. If it was the other way around and i was describing christianity in such loose and lowly ways i'm sure i'd have had an apology demanded.

Believe me, I wouldn't expect any apology.? Christianity (and religion in general) is routinely derided around here and I've gotten used to it.

It is too bad you can't understand why.

Most posters see you guys as hypocrites and it also sheds a bad light on Christians. You take the bible and use it as you wish. You use it to judge gays, yet discard it when the old testament is brought up. You use it as it suits your needs, yet totally ignore it for simple lessons about being honest, love thy neighbor, thou shall not kill, etc etc.

You condone violence and will not retract your war stance no matter how much evidence has come forward. Yet Jesus would not have lied, or condoned violence.

You lie, name call, and attack anybody who points it out. Yet Jesus would not have attacked others who spoke out against violence. Jesus would have spoken out against violence.

You express hatred towards anybody that holds any socialist type mentality or idea. You place blame on the poor calling them lazy and not worthy of an education. Yet Jesus preached to help his fellow men and not to judge others.

Then you guys turn around and say "You're attacking Christianity."

Well you don't have to worry about that because none of you guys are Christians by a long shot. NONE.

I always found that weird. "One nation under God", nice for atheists. And the "In God We Trust" on money. Who's talking for me?