one nation, under god

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a California father could not challenge the Pledge of Allegiance, a decision that sidestepped the broader question of the separation of church and state.

The 8-0 ruling by the high court reversed a lower-court decision that teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional.

The case had been brought by an atheist who did not want his third-grade daughter to have to listen to the phrase "under God" in the oath.

Five justices -- led by Justice John Paul Stevens -- said Michael Newdow, the father, did not have the legal standing to bring the case. Newdow, who is involved in a custody dispute with the mother of their third-grade daughter, could not speak for the girl, the court ruled.

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

In separate, concurring opinions, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas argued the court should have addressed the constitutional issue.

The justices said that the pledge does not violate the First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of religion by the government.

"To give the parent of such a child a sort of 'heckler's veto' over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase 'under God,' is an unwarranted extension of the establishment clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance," Rehnquist wrote.

At Newdow's request, Justice Antonin Scalia recused himself after he had made remarks in a speech critical of the case.

The ruling -- delivered on Flag Day -- means that the full Pledge of Allegiance will continue to be recited in the nation's public schools.

Newdow, who has medical and legal degrees, argued his own case before the high-court justices in March. (March arguments before Supreme Court)

Newdow never married the mother of the child and the two are in a battle over his parental rights.

The mother, Sandra Banning, has said she has no problem with her daughter reciting the full pledge and argued that Newdow had no right to bring the case.

Constitutional scholars have long debated whether the Pledge serves as a prayer in addition to a patriotic oath.

Newdow sued the Elk Grove Unified School District in Sacramento County, California, which his daughter attended, claiming public recitation by students violated her religious liberty. While legal precedent makes reciting the pledge voluntary, Newdow said it becomes unconstitutional when students are forced to hear it. He argued that the teacher-led recitations carry the stamp of government approval.

Labeling the Pledge of Allegiance a "unifying patriotic exercise," district Superintendent Dave Gordon expressed delighted with the ruling.

"We're grateful that our students and students throughout the country will continue to be able to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the words 'under God,' as has been the law of our land for 50 years," he said.

Gordon expressed disappointment that the court did not rule on the constitutionality of the pledge.

Newdow had declared that his daughter would be singled out if she chose not to say the Pledge of Allegiance, and would be coerced to participate.

"Imagine you're a third-grader in a class of 30 kids. That's enormous pressure to put on a child," he said. "Government needs to stay out of the religion business altogether."

To give the parent of such a child a sort of 'heckler's veto' over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students & is an unwarranted extension of the establishment clause.

-- Chief Justice William Rehnquist
​

The Bush administration opposed the ban, and Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the justices the pledge is simply a "ceremonial, patriotic exercise."

In June 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals drew sharply divided public opinion when it banned the teacher-led pledge for the nearly 10 million schoolchildren in the nine Western states under its jurisdiction.

In striking down the pledge, the judges ruled "the coercive effect of the policy here is particularly pronounced in the school setting given the age and impressionability of schoolchildren."

But the ban was put on hold until the high court issues a final ruling.

On Monday's Supreme Court decision, the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the court "ducked this constitutional issue today," and that students "should not feel compelled by school officials to subscribe to a particular religious belief in order to show love of country," according to a report from The Associated Press.

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, in an AP report.

The pledge was written in 1892 by Baptist minister and educator Francis Bellamy, who made no reference to religion in his version. It was originally worded: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." It quickly became a part of public school programs.

In 1954, Congress added the words "under God," after pressure by the Knights of Columbus and other groups. Another modification was to change "my flag" to "the flag of the United States of America."

The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, case no. 02-1624.

Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears contributed to this report.


They finally did something right, too bad it will be back to the supreme court within 2 years....

 

Michael Nedow can kiss my ass.

 

Hey Max... It is oppression. Not in the throw you in a cell kinda way, but none the less oppressed. I refused to say the pledge in class once and was told to recite it for the whole class. After refusing to do that I was forced to stand in front of the class until I decided to recite it. Class continued as usual, with me standing in front of it. After a week of this my teacher finally wrote me up. My principle had a little "talk" with me about patriotism and doing our part in our countries time of need. After that I informed him "Well... I still wont say the pledge," and got In School Suspension for another week. Still wouldnt say the pledge and was told I would be suspended if I didn't comply. I just got sick of it with only 2 weeks left of school and adheared

 

I never cared much for the Pledge, but I always thought it too petty an issue to get riled up over.

 

Yeah, there IS a difference between taking a valid stand, an being a whiney little bitch.

 

Do you have any of your own opinions to share or must you make YET another link to that guy?

 

DarkLunacy, I really respect you for taking a stand for what you believe in. I would like to hear about how any of these other posters have really taken a stand for something. Their posts and jeers ring empty.

No one should be FORCED to say the pledge, or any other governmental recitation, especially in a school where we are supposed to be enlightening our children. Enlightening by teaching, freedom of speech, separation of church and state, equal rights, individualism, etc.

Good for you, for standing up for your beliefs. Maybe there is hope for our future generations, if young people like you fight for your rights and beliefs.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."



..

 

there was a supreme court case back in the 70's(i believe0 saying that NO one is forced to say the pledge. If you got suspended or were even told to recite the pledge against the will you should/should have told the principal/super intendent or something.

 

If people really care that much about having to spend a few seconds mumbling words for a silly pledge that doesn't mean anything (or at least doesn't have to), then that's their thing. I just think the pledge is too superfluous to really merit a protest. It's one of the more benign policies out of the average school system's arsenal of bullshit. There's plenty of other stuff to criticize and protest, in school policy and otherwise, that deserve the attention more.

 

Unfortunately, our Supreme Court's technicality leaves the question unanswered!
What a cop out!

Paz,
Josie

 

I remember refusing to say the pledge while in elementary school. At the time it was because I simply thought it was dorky.

By sixth grade, though, I understood it to be a form of propoganda and indoctrination as well as a breach of the separation of church and state so I continued to refuse to say it. I got in plenty of arguments with my teachers. I'd say they were pretty decent about it, though. They insisted that I stand and not be disruptive, but that was it.

So I pretty much always thought it was bullshit.

 

technically they arent supposed to take the case..though they could have..they did cop out...which is probably a good thing since scalia was a DUMBASS and made a stupid comment...hopefully next time around he can learn to keep his mouth shut.

 

Actually, I have approximately 306 opinions shared in the forums, and 3 links to Maddox.

You want my opinion? People like Michael Nedow are the reason the American flag is banned in areas while people are encouraged to wave Puerto Recan, Armenian, Turkish, etc. flags. They are the reason science textbooks are required to have disclaimers stating that science is not fact, and that Creationism is a valid scientific theory. People like him look for things to bitch about. Ii it wasn't bad enough having one bitchy asshat around stupid people get behind him and scream for changes that nobody really wants or needs, but that people just want to have for the sake of change. There's my opinion, but Maddox's is good too.

And where is your opinion on this topic? You have no problem attacking me for wasting a post not sharing mine, but you've done the same thing. And at least mine was funny.

 

In my opinion, the pledge is a part of history. It isn't wrong for the child to have to learn it (maybe a waste of time, but not wrong) and they can hear it in their entirety.

If a parent doesn't want their to child to believe in god, "one nation under god" isn't going to hurt their cause. Just raise your kid...don't leave it up to the schools.

I could easily teach my child what god is to chiristians, what god is to me, and what god is doing in the national anthem, if I was worried about it.

As far as forcing someone to say it...i would be upset if my child didn't want to say it and was forced to. I would rather raise a child strong enough to stand up for what they believe in instead of one scared into being a mindless drone.

 

While it seems like a "petty" thing to some, to me its not. Its a pledge of aledgence. Think about those words. I'm not going to swear my devotion to a country I cant stand. I've always felt this way about the pledge. I won't die for someone elses war. Fuck that. And it starts with a 'petty' pledge. You start out saying "Ok its a pledge, no reason to get pissed about it" then it leads to "Gotta register for the draft, probablly wont even happen to me." and then "I'll go to war for a couple years. I might not die." or something like that. Little sacrifices little by little. I'm not saying you should set your school on fire, I just think you shouldn't adhear to something you disagree with just because the command is issued by an authority figure and the issue is petty.

 

There's a big difference between muttering the phrase "under God" and going out to register for the army buddy. I don't care strongly either way, change the thing if you want to. My problem is with the reason it's being changed and the person who is demanding the change.

 

From my understanding, you still cannot force someone to say the pledge...they just decided to keep "under god" in the pledge

 

Heard about that. More for the good guys.

 

From my understanding his daughter goes to church with her mom alot and actually has no problem saying the pledge. So really he has no reason to make a huge case about that.

 

you are forced to send in your draft registration card on your 18th birthday or technically you can be arrested and you definitely wont get financial aid for college if you havent(within 3 months i blelieve).....