I got such a huge laugh out of this…the mother of the daughter supposedly harmed by having to say the Pledge says her daughter goes to church…and that she hardly sees her father.
I had posted originally that I was shocked by this ruling, but upon further reflection, I do think the decision was a right one. I just find the irony in all this divine…
Yeah, I thought that was interesting. The fact that without “injury” the decision could be overturned is the key point in this, I guess.
Okay, ironic, I grant you.
The guy is looking like more and more of a jerk for dragging his daughter through this. He said, “The main thrust of this case is not my daughter, it’s me.” This may be quite correct, but it sounds just awful.
I’d rather that we take the tack that every time the Pledge is recited with the words “under God” in it, it injurs every atheist and polytheist by reinforcing in the minds of many Pledge-sayers that any nonmonotheistic religion–Oh, who are we kidding? Anything but Judeo/Christianity–is outside the patriotic mold. I think it’s also quite valid to say that the inclusion of “under God” implies that, according to the government, god exists, which is not something the goverment can say, under the Constitution!
You could even say that it hurts the monotheists because even if the government is agreeing with them this time it is an inappropriate government intrusion into religious life, which, in the long run, is dangerous to everyone.
So, in my mind, the injury still exists . . . although I’m by no means a legal scholar.
Whoops . . . and I wanted to add . . . I think that the best possible thing to happen would be for a devoutly religious person to challenge the “under God” phrase. The organization most outspoken in its support of the circuit court’s ruling was Americans United for Separation of Church and State, includes many people, atheist and religionist alike, who think that the law passed by Congress in 1954 to add “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.
What is she, nine years old? She’s neither an atheist nor a Christian, she’s just whatever particular parent she’s with wants her to be.
Likely, but not necessarily. I was doubting the existence of god by the time I was 9 despite Catholic upbringing; I was a critical thinker at an early age and none of it ever made any sense to me. However, I kept it to myself until after I was confirmed at age 12, since I knew being confirmed was very important to my parents.
Podkayne:
Running through my Con Law notes from last year (which, for all I know, could all have been overturned by now), the Constitution requires a “case” or “controversy” to be before a federal court. “Aha!” you say. “This is a controversy!” You’d think, but the Supreme Court has delineated what’s necessary for a case/controversy requirement.
Among other things, you need standing: the plaintiff needs to have a direct personal stake in the matter. This usually necessitates some kind of impending harm to the party. (And third-party standing is generally out; I suppose it’s ok for the dad to represent his daughter, but it’s not ok for the daughter to represent athieists if she’s not one herself.)
The general idea is that you don’t want courts answering questions that technically don’t exist yet, I think because a decision can be better made if there’s an actual concrete example before the court.
I’m not sure if this ruling will be overturned when it reaches SCOTUS on the basis that the child wasn’t harmed, but I think it’s only a matter of time before the issue pops up again.
Why do some of you assume that because the child is Christian there is no “case or controversy”? It’s not automatic that all Christians support the phrase “under God” in the OoA, anymore than it follows that all atheists automatcially oppose it.
A person can be a Christian and also favour the separation of church and state. If you accept the argument that having a teacher lead the children in the Oath amounts to coercion, then Christians could in all sincerity say that they will only pray when they find it appropriate to do so, not when a state agent tells them to do so.
Granted, that’s perhaps more sophisticated than your average 9 year old would likely argue, but I don’t think you can just assume that because the daughter is a Christian this matter will disappear.
Umm…did you read the linked article?
I was an atheist at the age of five and my beliefs did not change until I was in my twenties, when I temporarily became agnostic.
I became a Christian when I was 7. At the time my mother thought I was too young (even though she is a Christian as well) but I did it anyway. Haven’t changed my mind, either.
JOKE WARNING, A JOKE IS COMING, WARNING WARNING
Maybe she is a christian because of she has been forced to say ‘under God’ so many times.
OK THAT WAS A JOKE, NO BITING OFF OF HEADS!!!
<<<<< CHOMP >>>>>>>>
Too late.
Wait a sec,
I just remembered reading about Brown vs the Board of Ed. It seems that Brown was a white woman. She was upset at the conditions at the school that the childern of her maid attended.
Brown certainly was not being injured by the segegation of the schools.
Mr. Newdow does seem to have his hands full. There’s that child-support battle with his ex-wife that’s pending in California’s State appeals court.
He also has a lawsuit pending to force Congress to stop making religious references in official resolutions.
A federal judge in May tossed out another of Newdow’s cases, one he filed against President Bush for including a prayer in his inauguration ceremonies.
In Fort Lauderdale, Fla., he filed a lawsuit seeking to remove religious references from US currency (so to all the folks who asked “Is In God We Trust next?” …He beat you to the punch).
I’m looking at his history as published in the Forward and he appears to be an intelligent person. He earned a medical degree from UCLA in 1978.
After spending time in medicine he says, “I thought there were terrible things with medicine – medicine is rife with things that are not done properly and I was going to try to change it.”
So he went back for a law degree from the University of Michigan in 1988. It looks like he’s been in court ever since.
The OP gave an opinion, here’s mine: It doesn’t come as a surprise that his neighbors don’t get along with him, the Sacramento Bee seems more than fed up with his letters to the editor, The Wall Street Journal has labeled him a crank and his wife has left him.
Mr. Newdow is on a mission from God.
Well, maybe he’s not on a mission from God, but he’s on a mission.
People who are this consumed don’t seem to win many popularity contests, but they do eventually get laws changed.
A century ago they occasionally got hung.