Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional

[SLCPUNK]

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.

[2NaFish]

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.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

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.

[2NaFish]

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.

[Guns N RockMusic]

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.

[Sterlingdog]

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.?

[Surfrider]

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.

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. ? ?

[Dry Heat]

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".

[SLCPUNK]

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.

I don't care either.

[Sterlingdog]

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

[Surfrider]

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".

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.

[journey]

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

[Surfrider]

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

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.

[Dry Heat]

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

[Sterlingdog]

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

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.

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.

[gilld1]

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!

[SLCPUNK]

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.

[KeVoRkIaN]

..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".

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

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

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 ! "

[SLCPUNK]

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!