Supremes Rule on Pledge

[scoutldr]

By ANNE GEARAN

Associated Press Writer

 

(AP) - The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.

 

At least for now, the decision - which came on Flag Day - leaves untouched the practice in which millions of schoolchildren around the country begin the day by reciting the pledge.

 

The court said atheist Michael Newdow could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.

 

Newdow is in a protracted custody fight with the girl's mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, the court said. Eight justices voted to reverse a lower court ruling in Newdow's favor.

 

Justice Antonin Scalia removed himself from participation in the case, presumably because of remarks he had made that seemed to telegraph his view that the pledge is constitutional.

 

"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court.

 

"I may be the best father in the world," Newdow said shortly after the ruling was announced. "She spends 10 days a month with me. The suggestion that I don't have sufficient custody is just incredible. This is such a blow for parental rights."

 

The 10-year-old's mother, Sandra Banning, had told the court she has no objection to the pledge. The full extent of the problems with the case was not apparent until she filed papers at the high court, Stevens wrote Monday.

 

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the outcome of the case, but still wrote separately to say that the pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas agreed with him.

 

The ruling came on the day that Congress set aside to honor the national flag. The ruling also came exactly 50 years after Congress added the disputed words "under God" to what had been a secular patriotic oath.

 

The high court's lengthy opinion overturns a ruling two years ago that the teacher-led pledge was unconstitutional in public schools. That appeals court decision set off a national uproar and would have stripped the reference to God from the version of the pledge said by about 9.6 million schoolchildren in California and other western states.

 

Newdow's daughter, like most elementary school children, hears the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily.

 

The First Amendment guarantees that government will not "establish" religion, wording that has come to mean a general ban on overt government sponsorship of religion in public schools and elsewhere.

 

The Supreme Court has already said that schoolchildren cannot be required to recite the oath that begins, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America."

 

The court has also repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.

 

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the language of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's precedents make clear that tax-supported schools cannot lend their imprimatur to a declaration of fealty to "one nation under God."

 

The Bush administration, the girl's school and Newdow all asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the case.

 

The administration had asked the high court to rule against Newdow, either on the legal question of his ability to sue or on the constitutional issue. The administration argued that the reference to God in the pledge is more about ceremony and history than about religion.

 

The reference is an "official acknowledgment of our nation's religious heritage," similar to the "In God We Trust" stamped on coins and bills, Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued to the court.

 

It is far-fetched to say such references pose a real danger of imposing state-sponsored religion, Olson said.

 

Newdow claims a judge recently gave him joint custody of the girl, whose name is not part of the legal papers filed with the Supreme Court.

 

Newdow holds medical and legal degrees, and says he is an ordained minister. He argued his own case at the court in March.

 

The case began when Newdow sued Congress, President Bush and others to eliminate the words "under God." He asked for no damages.

 

On Monday, Newdow said he would continue that fight.

 

"The pledge is still unconstitutional," he said. "What is being done to parents is unconstitutional."

 

Newdow had numerous backers at the high court, although they were outnumbered by legal briefs in favor of keeping the wording of the pledge as it is.

 

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said he is disappointed.

 

"The justices ducked this constitutional issue today, but it is likely to come back in the future," Lynn said. "Students should not feel compelled by school officials to subscribe to a particular religious belief in order to show love of country."

 

On the other side, the American Center for Law and Justice said the ruling removes a cloud from the pledge.

 

"While the court did not address the merits of the case, it is clear that the Pledge of Allegiance and the words 'under God' can continue to be recited by students across America," said Jay Sekulow, the group's chief counsel.

 

Congress adopted the pledge as a national patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress added the phrase "under God" more than a decade later, in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold.

 

Supporters of the new wording said it would set the United States apart from godless communism.

 

The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624.

 

(Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

 

 

[evmori]

Another victory for the good guys. Wonder what Merlyn thinks of this?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[SR540Beaver]

Unfortunately, the SC has side stepped the issue instead of addressing it. It will come up again. It would have been nice to have it decided and put to bed once and for all.

[NJCubScouter]

All they really decided was that Mr. Newdow cannot sue on his daughter's behalf on this issue. They did not decide whether the pledge, as recited in public schools, is constitutional. We do know, if we could not already have guessed, that at least 4 of the justices would, if and when the issue is decided, rule in favor of constitutionality. I suspect that several others would as well -- but the really important part will be the grounds on which the court eventually rules. If they decide this issue on grounds of "ceremonial deism," as some have predicted, then the basis of the decision will be that the use of the word "God" by the government in this context (and maybe in others, such as on money) is constitutional because it has no religious significance whatsoever. I wonder whether those who were most opposed to the Ninth Circuit decision will really see that as a victory.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ah yes, Ed, another "victory" (really more of a delay, since the court didn't address the actual issue) for religiously meaningless god invocations. As one of the briefs filed by a group of Christians and Jews in support of Newdow to removed 'under god' from the pledge put it:

 

I pledge allegiance to . . . one Nation, under God. This

statement is inherently and unavoidably a personal affirmation of religious

faith. Either it is intended seriously, or it is not.

 

If it is intended seriously, then every day, government asks

millions of school children to affirm and reaffirm their religious faith.

This request is made to children who believe in a single God Whom the

nation is under, and equally to children who believe in no god, many gods,

or god as a concept so abstract and remote that it is meaningless or

inaccurate to speak of being under God.

 

If the religious portion of the Pledge is not intended as a serious

affirmation of faith, then every day, government asks millions of school

children to take the name of the Lord in vain. Children are asked to recite

what sounds like a serious religious affirmation, but it is not intended to

have any real religious meaning. This is just as bad from a perspective of

religious liberty, and it is worse from a perspective of religious faith.

(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[PatBB]

I believe in God & I like to view my country as 'One Nation Under God,' but I don't force:) my religious beliefs on others.

 

The Australians had a very intelligent solution in their Pledge, which is also their Pledge for New Citizens being naturalized:

 

As an Australian citizen,

I affirm * my loyalty to Australia and its people,

Whose democratic beliefs I share,

Whose rights and liberties I respect,

And whose laws I uphold and obey.

 

From: http://www.citizenship.gov.au/ceremonies.htm

 

This Pledge must have been revised just this year, because when I read it in 2003 in preparation for my vacation to Australia, it said UNDER GOD in parentheses where I've added the *. Each person was free to say or not say 'under God' according to their own principles.

[evmori]

Nice try, Merlyn. Good scenarios but in no way accurate. What part of "One Nation Under God" is not a fact? The USA is one nation and we are all under God whether you believe in God or not! Just a statement of fact! And don't forget, "In God We Trust" is on our currency! And I guess we can't sing "God Bless America" at any government sponsored event. NOT! This is America, Land of the Free, not the former USSR!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

As usual Ed, it's pointless to try and educate you. For one thing, you seemed to have missed where I told you I was quoting an amicus brief filed by a group of Christians and Jews, so it isn't even something I wrote, it's something a group of Christians and Jews wrote. And you don't even know what a "fact" is, but that's no surprise.

[Fat Old Guy]

Moi-lin typed, "I pledge allegiance to . . . one Nation, under God."

 

Moi-lin, when you can't get the facts straight it proves that you are a nitwit. Read the pledge and check your commas.

 

 

[evmori]

No Merlyn again you are in error. I realized what you were quoting. And it IS a fact the USA IS "One Nation, Under God". You got proof otherwise?

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[ScouterPaul]

Ed,

 

Whose God are we under...yours or mine? Isn't that the crux of the issue. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" And isn't God central to most but not all religions? "In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge." In my humble opinion this looks as if Congress established a God based religion or at he very least championed a God based religion.

 

 

[evmori]

Scouter Paul,

There is only one God.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, like I said, you don't even know what a "fact" is.

 

And Fathead Old Guy, first, I didn't write that part, I was quoting an amicus brief written by some Christians and Jews; and second, learn what ellipses are, and what they mean when you use them in a quotation.

[evmori]

Once again, Merlyn dodges! He's good at that!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, gods aren't facts. But you don't understand what a fact is, so you can't understand that. But you try to paper over your ignorance by saying I'm "dodging" the issue somehow.