Supreme Court to Take Up "Under God"

This is certainly going to be one of the most closely watched Supreme Court cases in a long time.


Without getting into a debate about religion, what do you think of the legal aspects of this case?

1. What do you think the Supreme Court will do?

2. What do you think the Supreme Court should do?

3. Depending on how this case is decided, what happens next?

Personally, I'm betting that the Court will dismiss the case based on some very reasonable questions about whether Michael Newdow can challenge the saying of the pledge in the school which his daughter attends, since the child's mother supports the saying of the Pledge. These circumstances have nothing to do with the main point of this case, of course.

What I'd like to see happen is to make it clear that no government institution should be requesting that anyone participate in any activity with any religious content. Allowing students to choose not to participate in a teacher-led Pledge with religious content isn't strong enough, in my opinion. It makes the student who chooses not to participate a pariah.

If the Supreme Court decides that the Pledge is OK, we will have a much stronger push to allow teacher-led "nondenominational" prayer in public schools. If the Supreme Court decides the Pledge is not OK, we may see successful challenges against other government-sponsored promotions of religious belief.

I'm sooo excited about this case.


I think there is a possibility that the case will be dismissed on Newdow's right to challenge, but I've watched him speak, and I'm confident that he knows whether or not he has a legal leg to stand on. If the Supreme Court hears this, hopefully they will resolve the issue at hand (the mutilation of the original pledge), regardless of the red tape involved.


I'd like for them to remove the phrase "under god" from the pledge, but I'm guessing they don't have that power to change the pledge back to original form (Congress was able to add the words, so I assume only Congress would be able to remove the words - which will never happen). So realistically, the most we can expect is for the Supreme Court to agree that schools cannot request students to profess their alignment with any religion. And I agree with Victoria here, just letting students opt out of saying it while their peers are watching is a form of peer pressure that coerces students to conform.



I agree with these observations. I hope that eventually all mentions of god will be removed from our government. 90% of my charitable donations each year go to the cause of separating church from state. Once I'm a lawyer, and then eventually a judge (hopefully), my life will always be dedicated to the separation of church and state. There's nothing in this world that I feel more strongly about.

Let me first start out saying that this is a very interesting case for the Supreme Court. As a Christian, I believe in glorifying God and honoring his name, but I also understand a person has a right to choose whether they want acknowledge God ot not and we shouldn't impose a religion on anyone. For the most part, its about having a choice.

1) I think the Supreme Court will probably dismiss this case.

2) I think they should dismiss this case based on the moral values the country was founded on. The men who wrote the Constitution clearly were acknowledging there is a divine presence (using the Bible). Why else would they agree "all men were created equal". Key word: created. But some politicians are saying it doesn't reference to any particular God. Big mistake in my opinion. You either have to clarify which God we are acknowledging or don't acknowledge at all.
Once again, a choice has to be made.

3) I'm pretty sure if the Supreme Court agrees to remove the phrase "under God" from the pledge of allegiance, you will probably see plenty of protests around the country. Not sure what the next course of action will be, but I will bet their will be some type of response.

Article here.



With only 8 justices, there is the possibility of a tie? What would happen then?

I think it is right and JUST that Scalia recuse himself from the decision. I'm glad he is able to make that decision even despite how strongly he obviously feels about the issue. No doubt he would love to contribute in this case, and I'd bet he's kicking himself for the public statement. Kudos to Newdow for knowing the intricacies of the process. It's nice to see a competent crusader championing this cause.

I would like to see a national vote on this from the entire population of the United States. Let the will of the people decide.

The unfathomable ignorance of the secular left in their understanding of this reference to deity in both the US pledge and the US declaration as well as Canada's constitution never ceases to amaze me.

The refernce to deity in these founding documents is evidence of the popular will in deference to the rule of natural law. All former British nations operate under the pretexts of natural law which hold government responsible to the individual's God-given (natural) rights. If you remove the concept of government and law being accountable to a higher universal reality then you are, in essence, deifying mortal men and their governments. Sorry, but even in a modern agnostic secular world I don't think it's wise to allow governors/government the final level of moral authority or the arbiters of your God given (naturalrights and liberty).

Natural law leaves this level to universal natural reality. It makes government and men accountable to universal truths (such as a creator-given right to freedom)....not man made ordained truths. To remove reference of deity (natural universal authority) is to agree with the premise that your rights and freedoms do not flow from a universal natural reality but are the gift of some corporial governing body.

The tenents of natural law and it's guarantee of individual rights was a well known and accepted intellectual truth to the generation which produced the founding fathers. Seeing inane cort cases like this one make me belive men like Jefferson couls scrpe more intellect from under thei dirty finger nail than can be produced by a whole room ful of moder navel gazing "activist" jurocrats.

I think in a split decision, the original circuit court's decision stands - which in this case the 9th circuit decided that the new pledge is unconstitutional.

I'm still looking for evidence that this is actually what happens. If anyone knows for sure, please provide link.

Yeah the people have always shown impartiality in regards to Constitutional matters

1. What do you think the Supreme Court will do?
They will drop the case for some reason or another. Emotion on this one would be too great. I like the fact my "Christian" neighbors aren't really feeling all that persecuted. Lets not give American Mullahs any reasons to gain followers. I really don't like the idea of having to live in fear of my "christian" neighbors learning I am an Agnostic. Burning crosses are annoying.

2. What do you think the Supreme Court should do?
It is already well established that kids do not even have to SAY the pledge. They can if they want and they can leave out the under god part if they want. So why not have everybody mind their own damn business for a change. If people are that worried about their kids being pressured they obviously haven't been to a public school in some time. As for "christians" in need of the state sanctioning their religion I think they need to reread their bibles. Even a cynical non christian such as myself knows their supposed to maintain their faith regardless. If there is any merit to their beliefs it should just draw people in. If it needs daily re-indoctrination that draws question to its strength as a belief system.

3. Depending on how this case is decided, what happens next?
If dropped it goes back to the constant bickering of busybodies out to save the world. If it is decided unconstitutional we'll see even more of the constitution overturned and rewritten to give faith an official place in American culture. If it is decided not unconstitutional then we'll be subjected to silly speeches from the likes of Hannities and the robertson type mullahs on how America has been "saved' and how we're all judeo christians and jesus built my hotrod and then nothing.

First off, you are ignoring the fact that removal of "under God" does not propose its opposite--in this case, atheism. Read the pledge, both with and without:

"... one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"... one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The second one DOES NOT promote atheism. It does not say, "... one nation, without God, indivisible...".

Secondly, you ignore why our country was founded. One of the primary reasons the pilgrims left England was due to religious persecution. Those pilgrims did not want the government to promote the Church of England (a Judeo-Christian sect) as the only acceptable one. By promoting "under God" as acceptable, we are rejecting the very reason why our nation was founded. Sure, the citizens who created the Declaration of Independence were God-fearing citizens, but there is a specific reason for the First Amendment, and why no mention of a higher power is within the actual Constitution.

The Pledge of Allegiance should be a pledge of loyalty to our country. It should not have "under God" in there because this presupposes that atheists and any non-God believing citizens are somehow sub-par or unpatriotic. Eisenhower included the phrase because there was a commonly held belief by the majority that atheism equated to communism. This, of course, is a misperception. Get "under God" out and back to its original form.

1. What do you think the Supreme Court will do?
They will throw the case out without deciding. They are already being declared "activist judges" and they won't want to bring unnecessary displeasure for the majority.

2. What do you think the Supreme Court should do?
Obviously, they should vote that the Pledge is not unconstitutional, but is inappropriate in public schools. They should either remove "under God" from the phrasing, or order the Pledge of Allegiance from being recited in public schools. It could be argued that those who do not wish to say it can withhold, but that is unfair to these kids who have differing beliefs.

3. Depending on how this case is decided, what happens next?
I can't answer this since the case has not been decided. I can theorize, but it's rather pointless.

*edited for grammatical revisions*

I think they will overturn the 9th Circuit's decision. The Supremes could dodge the issue altogether. They have been urged to throw out the case, without a ruling on the constitutional issue, because of questions about whether Newdow had custody when he filed the suit and needed the mother's consent.




I think they should overturn the 9th Circuit's ruling (as they have done since the 9th Circuit has been as nutty as it is). I would agree with the overturn ruling.

While we are worrying about getting attacked again by Al-Queda, this idiot is worried about his daughter, who he has NO custody over anymore, is worried about 2 words that she has to say.

Elegantly put! It's good to see some strong conservative thought out of Canada!

1. What do you think the Supreme Court will do?
I think the court will drop the case.

2. What do you think the Supreme Court should do?
I think the court should drop the case as it is not unconstitutional. Also, 90% or Americans believe the pledge should stay as it is, according to a poll by the AP.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/24/100537.shtml

If it's not in God that we trust, then who is it? Politicians? Honestly, do you trust your basic rights in the hands of George W. Bush? Or Senator Kerry? Do you want to leave it up to them to define what our basic rights are? I know I don't. There needs to be a higher unchanging standard for everyone to look up to, citizens and politicians alike. It is beneficial for a nation to have trust in God who represents perfection and the very best to which they should aspire for.

What the Supreme Court should do (and I hope it will do) is reverse the 9th Circuit's decision. The whole basis of the case does not stand.


Source: 9th Circuit Pledge of Allegiance ruling

It has been shown that his daughter was not injured in reciting the POA. She willingly recited it and nobody forced her. She did not get ridiculed for not saying the pledge. As a matter of fact, she was a Christian and did not object to saying "under God".

So, the whole case is based on a lie from Michael Newdow.

1. What do you think the Supreme Court will do?
I have a feeling they will find some pretext to drop the case.

2. What do you think the Supreme Court should do?
I think the original pledge is just fine, it existed for decades before certain factions decided to put a divisive phrase in there right before the pledge claims the country is indivisible.

3. Depending on how this case is decided, what happens next?
The religious right's next step in turning this country into a theocracy is already underway. LINK.

1. What do you think the Supreme Court will do?

I have a feeling the SC's will have to find some way to dismiss it -- they wouldn't be doing their jobs if they allowed the phrase to stay in the pledge, but since it would cause such a stink for those who think the Judeo-Christian diety should be worshipped outside of church, they won't be able to do what they should do.

2. What do you think the Supreme Court should do?

IF the pledge should even be said at all in schools(an issue for another thread), they should restore it back to the original (pre-1950's) pledge to keep a distinction between church and state.


3. Depending on how this case is decided, what happens next?

If the Supremes do the right thing, we could possibly have some Christian riots or at the very least it will cause more polarization in the US; unfortunately it will not lead to dialogue since there are hardly any shades of gray (not to mention even colors) when it comes to religious dogma.

If the Supremes cater to the Christians, those of us of different religious/spiritual persuaisions (and those without a religious/spiritual persuasion) will have to continue the fight for the separation of church and state so that our rights will be equal to Christian rights in this country.


edited to fix typos

As a person of a left political persuasion, one questions the need for schoolchildren to make any oath of allegiance to the Stars and Stripes at all, but, keeping within the confines of this topic, its pretty safe to say that something is particularly wrong in America today, if we insist on forcing faith on children or atheists.
The United States, as previously stated, was formed by a group of Non-Conformist escaping such ‘tyranny of the majority’ in England. Thus, over the next hundred years, The US saw an influx of Catholics, non-conformist Protestants, Jews, Russian Orthodox, Agnostics and Atheists.
The principle was set, and is upheld by the First Amendment that the United States remains a secular nation; the wording clearly states ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion or prohibiting the free exercise therof’. Declaring belief in ‘One Nation, Under God’ makes the clear assertion that the US is allied to the principle that state and faith are somehow interwoven. The Supreme Court must also take into consideration original intent. If we look back, the History books record that in 1954, the only reason for the insertions success was the intervention of Ike, upon the request of a Scottish Presbyterian Minister. Original Intent therefore determines that the reference to ‘God’ follows the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of God, a view not shared by other faiths. This is a clear indication of respect of a religious establishment.
How, with this statement, are American-Atheists, American-Buddhists, American-Hindus and various other religions, practices and faiths rights to freedom of Religion protected? Atheists are free not to practice religion, its quite clearly accepted in modern society today, Hindus are free to worship many different Gods, this too is accepted. Agnostics are free to worship a concept of god not allied to any current institutional concept. By saying that, because they have the choice to say the oath or not, is to deny patriotic, non judeo-christian-islamic people the right affirm their confidence in their country. Should the only option for an Athesist to be that they refrain from the oath altogether? And does this not affect their guarded right of the freedom of speech.

But, what I think, and the Supreme Court think are two vastly different things. With a 4 to 4 Conservative-Liberal split, with Justice Scalia withdrawing because of his incapability to perform the role of a Judge and remain neutral at all times.
I would disagree with the statement made above that they are ‘Activist Judges’. Judicial activism is nothing now in comparison to the Warren and Burger Courts, the Media, in their eternal strive to control all aspects of our lives, are using this term, which, as pejurated to become an insult (for some unknown reason) in an effort to empathetically call the Judges to value their perceived appearance over them performing their constitutional job description.
So..

1. The SC will most likely vote the 4-4 on this one. It doesn’t set a precedent, so Newdow gets a semi-win (better than a defeat at the hands of Scalia) . I doubt they will throw the case out on ground of the fathers right to file, I’m certain one of the minor courts, federal or state would have dismissed it on these grounds long ago.
2. For reasons stated above, the Oath should be declared unconstitutional, and a new oath, devoid of religious reference should be instated.
3. No doubt the Bible belt will revolt, the northern yanks wont mind, and we will all just get on with it. This whole issue is less of a problem that implicates ever single last American into a ‘do or die’ situation, its more of a philosophical debate over the relationship between state and church, and in a time of neo-conservative rule, that separation is more important than ever.

I didn't say it had anything to do with theology one way or the other. The reference to God is a refernce to the nation being founded under rule of natural law. Removing the reference removes the premise of natural law from the rule of law. All American law is based in precedent and the removal of defference to natural law in such a core statement of aligence leaves the door open to to deconstructing every right and liberty deemed to exist naturally (God given). In a legal sense it is a statement that the nation rejects government subservience to a higher universal thruth/moral authority which is the source for the true endowment of our rights.

If you remove the reference to Diety you are, by extention of legal logic, stating that natural rights do not exist naturally but have to be man made and sanctioned. That is a dangerous ideom to precedent in law if you believe government should not be a "giver" of any core right but only there to recognise that rights existed before it's time and defer it's authority to be a protector (not a dispenser) of those rights.

The argument is not about religious affiliation. It is not about the existance or non existance of deity. It's about government's role. Is it a servant or a master.

Franly I think the supreme court will do what it is famous for in the modern political era......producing a decision that compromises incontestable inalienable founding principles and their legal idioms.

Au Contraire. Rights DO exist naturally - regardless of any supernatural being. It is only when humans try to live peacefully together to rights need to be monitored.

For those of us who do not believe in gods, putting such folk lore as "under god" into a patriotic pledge, to us removes the sanctity of the pledge. That's like saying "one nation, under unicorns". It just doesn't make sense and cheapens the whole concept of pledging allegiance to a nation that values freedom of religion.

Fine. Then shall we change it to "one nation, under natural law..."? The rather blatant fact is that "under God" specifically identifies religion. This entire argument is about a religious theological deity obtaining preference over other religious views. You also presuppose that natural law is God given, despite that God is a theory and can not be proven. So in reality, natural law IS man made.

You are correct, "in a legal sense it is a statement that the nation rejects government subservience to a higher universal truth/moral authority". That is directly because of the First Amendment's antiestablishment clause. Go back to history class--you need some serious understanding of why our country was founded. The Pledge of Allegiance has nothing to do with our rights, but is instead a patriotic admission to support our country. Inclusion of "under God" excludes the non-religious from feeling welcome.

I hope you understand that the original Pledge DID NOT include the phrase "under God". It was only until Eisenhower deemed it necessary on the inaccurate ideal that atheism somehow equated to communism. This means someone had to propose that "under God" be included--a direct establishment of religion in a government-sanctioned pledge of allegiance.

It is ironic that a divisive phrase comes directly before the word "indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." It's contradictory in terminology.

I think the Supremes will take the case because whatever they do, it won't be a precedent. Scalia fixed that. So, my prediction is 4-4 in overtime, the appeals ruling sticking.

Unfortunately, this case is really about one man's ego, but since this is the land of the litigated, God Bless 'em.

That being said, I think it would be wrong to remove the "Under God" reference and probably for reasons nobody has talked about.

The Constitution only states:

The Constitution says nothing about the separation of church and state. That premise came to fruition in 1802 when Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Why did he write it? Because rumor control had it that the Congregationalists were going to become a national religion. Unfounded, but Jefferson's answer to that rumor became the "separation of church and state". It never really existed before - let alone in the Constitution.

But one thing the Constitution IS clear about, is acknowledging the existence of the state and the existence of the Church. If we remove any reference to the church from the state, isn't that really unconstitutional? Because the Constitution clearly acknowledges it's existence and removing all references to it would be contrary to what the constitution provides.

Which leads to this cans of worms.

Let's say the Supremes rule Mr. Ego got it right and demands "Under God" be removed from the pledge. Next will be "In God We Trust" from money, and so on and so forth.

But that's not the real problem. The problem is, it works the other way.

Wouldn't that mean that churchs could not have any STATE references in their buildings? No money...no flags...nothing linked to the state. If the law requires us to remove God from the state, wouldn't we need to remove the state from God?

It seems to be an all or nothing solution, but the Constitution doesn't allow for "nothing". The church clearly exists.

No, and no, and no. I'm sure someone will at some time sue over the "In God We Trust" on our money. In that particular instance, I will probably side with those opposing the removal (not for religious reasons, but for economic feasability).

The Constitution (rather, the First Amendment) states that citizens have freedom OF religion. They can believe what they want, practice what they want, do what they want. The government can not appoint one religion as our nation's religion. The word "God" refers to a specific religious viewpoint.

The problem with your argument is that churches are private institutions--the government is a public one. Churches can do as they please as private institutions (which includes displaying state references). The government, as a representation of its citizens, can not give preferential treatment to one religion over another (our state of Utah's legislature is commonly at odds with the ACLU because the LDS Church has so much sway on what happens in governmental affairs). This is what Thomas Jefferson was referring to.

Since the government is a representative government, it is in the best interest to leave religion out of governmental affairs--which religion do we pick? Why doesn't it say, "One nation, under Buddha"? And don't give me that clap-trap that this nation was founded on God's principles. This nation was founded in order to keep religion from running the government, as it did in England.

Again, I ask, how can Jewish people feel they are fully represented or considered, Moslems, Buddhists, Atheists alike, in a nation that sponsors a specific Christian faith? I have already stated the history of America as a Secular nation. Its hard to believe, that if at the conception of the United States, they had no particular objection to a secular philosophy, they would at the time, not adopted one of the larger Christian movements.

But for the question as to should the State be removed from Religion, the concepts are entirely different.
Just as Political Action Committees feed into the lobbying frenzy, just as the people feed into voting and to elections, churches and synagogues, religious groups alike have a stake in our country. They can call themselves American institutions because they quite frankly are. They have a stake in our communities as much as any individual. It’s all about power. They should feed into communities by providing a spiritual service; a community service, and not force their faith upon others. That is why state and church don’t mix. For the State to adopt a Church and to insist it predominance over others is to force people to conform to a set religious belief, not something that this nation was founded upon, quite the opposite.

Where is the freedom of choice then? Where is the freedom of religious worship then?

I tend to think this is just another case that, although gaining a ton of media attention, won't amount to much.

My take is that the SC will take the case, and leave the two words in.

The use of the word "God" is not only "Christian". Many think of money as their "God". Jews, Christians and most other religions believe in a "God".

It does not say "One Nation under a Christian God"

It is open to interpretation, and that is all that is needed.

Perhaps, except that ignores exactly why the "under God" was included (in other words, to discriminate against atheists). It also ignores that "under God" had to be included after some 60 years. So removing the phrase returns the Pledge to its original form. That this causes so much outrage is humorous. Belief in God is a personal decision--a governmentally-sanctioned pledge of loyalty to our country has nothing to do with God whatsoever.

FargoUT Wrote:


Sure it is, but also is believing what "God" would mean, in the sentence.

I would feel the same if I did not know people who believed the word meant different things.

Correct. Why the need to remove reference to these natiral rights under law...this is the proven intent of the phrasing and the accepted defined norm in the courts.

228 years ago the founders enunciated the concept of natural rights/law as being gifted from nature by the creator of the human race and the universe.....who, or whatever that may or may not be....whether it be God or Vishnu or Yawhi or some post modernist accidental cosmic muffin spinning in nothingness. The verbalisation choices available to revolutionary era legal minds was limited....they chose "God" as that is how their culture chose to articulate the universal natural order in a word. Modern conventional legal assessment treats the term to be generic in definition and free of any particular religious anyway so the religious repression argument is redundant.

This argument has nothing to do with religious freedom and the nit contesting this has only one goal...and it is deconstructionist in nature and dangerous from a civil perspective.

How does adding the phrase by Eisenhower nearly 200 years later have anything to do with the founding fathers? There is no tradition of this in the pledge- in fact, the original writer did not want it in there-

I do think that the real weakness of the case lies in who brought the case, not in the actual merits of the case unfortunately.

Then if the pledge were changed to "One Nation, under Goddess" you would be okay with that?

After all, we can justify it by saying that it's all the same --my goddess is the supreme ruler of all and just because you refer to her as a he does not make it a different ruler -- after all, we're not calling it a Pagan Goddess.

When you say "God", we all know that you are referencing the Judeo-Christian deity. If you truly want to make it non-discriminatory to those of other religious/spiritual traditions why not have it say "one nation, under a deity or deities"? And that, by the way, would still be forcing atheists to state the existence of something illogical everyday just to please your Christian sensibilities.

If this was meant to be a Christian Nation, the founding fathers would have established a state religion based on Christianity, so it still stands that if the SC decides to keep the phrase in they are not upholding our right to freedom from a state sponsored religion.

Not a problem with me

God is God, call him/her Vicki for all I care. But I think you miss the point. It is up to the "speaker", not me, to determine what it means.

An even better approach for a "freedom loving" country would be to

1) leave that part blank for everyone to insert what they "determine" this country is under instead of having to re-interpret a Judeo-Christian construct.

2) take out the phrase all together, so that Christians (in private or amongst themselves, forcing no one) can continue thinking this country is "on nation, under God", Muslims can continue to think of it as "on nation, under Allah" or others can think of it as "one Nation, under Great Spirit" or "one nation, under Goddess" and the atheists don't have to be bothered at all about it.

"God" is a divisive term, and the phrase "under God" was added to show that we were different from communists -- it is meant to be divisive and a badge for who is "more patriotic" or whose beliefs are more right or worthy.

With all due respect, a "word" is only divisive if one allows it to be so.

The money that YOU spend has "In God we trust". Do you reject it? Do you take a Christmas Holiday, or go to work?

There is a more true sign of the christian right forcing thier beliefs down non-believers throats in your own post red- without using money you can not eat, but are forced to deal in a currency that says "in god we trust". The Christmas holiday was originally a pagan worship of the solstice, so you can choose to sit at home and enjoy the solsctice if you wish.

Or as Chris Rock said about holidays "Arizona didn't want a martin luther king day- how racist do you have to be to refuse a day off? "

No, the forcing of Christians upon non-christians is permeated throughout our society, and it is time to deal with it- including removing the "in god we trust".

I think those that know me would find it hard to believe I was part of "the Christian Right". But thats cool, believe what you want.



Not true, don't carry cash. Credit Cards carry no such markings. Oh, I bet when you see a "fiver" laying on the ground you just pass it right up.

Look, Lets "tolerate" every little small group and thier "sensibilities", but say your a "Christian", and BOOM, mark them as Slave Keepers!.

Red

So you are forcing an inconveniance on someone just to make your god known ( and I say "you" in the generic term, I do not personally mean "you" red- outside the argument of putting the stamp of God on the doing US business) and everyplace does not accept plastic either, do they?

Hey, and I say this respectfully, no one ever said protesting was easy.

I am a Smoker, since they banned smoking in Bars/Restaraunts in my town, I don't frequent them, and I spend 1 1/2 hours a week "rolling my own" so the State gets almost zip in revenue from my "nasty lil habit".

Now, about that fiver..................

Not sure. It would depend on if the Supreme court decides that the mentioning of God (a word used in multiple religions) is considered "establishment" of religion.



"Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954 when we were embroiled in the public relations battle with "the red menace". It was inserted in the pledge, by congress to promote religion in opposition to the "God-Less" communists.

IMHO it clearly suggests the promotion of religion but is that establishment of religion? Is it establishment of one religion? From what theology I remember, the God of the Jewish faith is the God of Christains and the God of Islam. Not to mention that most pagan religions have "God(s)". Of course, we forget athiests.

I think the court should rule against the use of "under God" in government venues. It was CLEARLY added to the pledge as a method to promote religion by suggesting that the nation was beholden to God. That, to me, is clearly establishment because it suggests there is one (take your pick) and that the government is beholden to him/her/it and thus wrong per the 1st amendment.



Assuming the Supreme Court rules that "under god" in the pledge equals establishment then we will likely see the pledge removed from use in schools. Funny thing is, long before this issue came to light many schools stopped saying the pledge a long time ago (as I believe all of the schools in my area did). Also, as far as I know no public schools REQUIRE children to say the pledge, or say the pledge with "under God" in it.

Congress may try for a constitutional amendment. I hope not. Maybe they will assault the 1st amendment all the way with a new amendment addressing the pledge, the 10 commandments in government buildings and banning flag burning. Why not? who cares what the founding father's thought. Wait, well we do care what they thought about guns, but they were wacked and obviously drunk when they drafted that first part of the first amendment.

Now should children or others be stopped or banned from "free exercise" and choosing to say the pledge with "under God" in it on their own? Obsolutely not. It should just not be sponsored or required by the government.

1. I think the Supreme Court will leave it as it is.
It is my understanding that all 9 of the justices are of the Christian
faith, and these judges can do what is in their hearts, after
all, they are appointed for life.

2. I think the Supreme Court should leave it alone.
I am not a Christian, yet I'm happy with the wording of the Pledge.
The father who is claiming his daughter shouldn't be made
to say the word God is being over-zealous.

3. I don't know what happens next. Lawyers and
other nut-cases will most likely jump on the bandwagon, regardless.

The mother's (of the daughter and ex-wife of the man taking The Pledge to the Supreme Court) lawyer is none other than Kenneth Starr as in Whitewater/Monica/Clintons For what it is worth, Mr. Starr gave about the same explanation as the quote above as to UNDER GOD does not infer religion and thus why the rule separation of church and state doesn't apply.

Think the Supreme Court will probably dismiss or rule against removing UNDER GOD from the Pledge.



Yes, Governor Evan Mecham (1986-1987) was overwhelmingly impeached by the Arizona voters after only serving one year as Governor.

1. The Supreme Court Minus One will strike down the 1954 law that added the words "under God" from the books, thereby returning the pledge to its previous state. With Scalia out, I expect a 6-2 decision.

2. That is exactly what they should do. The great thing about Supreme Court Justices is that they're lifetime appointments. That is preciesly so they can feel free to make the tough, unpopular decisions without fear of political reprisal at the next election. Thank goodness for that little bit of forethought from those smart guys who signed the Constitution.

3. What's next? The president will make a fuss about "activist judges," he'll probably support some silly constitutional amendment (because that's become the gut reaction of late to a court decision you don't like), the amendment won't have a snowball's chance, and we'll all live happily ever after.

The world won't stop spinning without those two words in our pledge. They've only been there for 50 years and they got along just fine before that. Most Americans probably couldn't recite the pledge without help if you asked them (ala Jay Leno). Even the Governor of Iowa screwed it up at the Democratic party fund raiser late last year. The last time I saw the pledge regularly recited was the 3rd grade (15 years ago) and the last time I said it was a year before that. Even now, we play/sing the national anthem at all sorts of events, but the pledge of allegiance is not nearly as common. Why all this stress over a dinosaur?

Both Justices Ginsberg and Breyer are Jewish.

However, even if they WERE Christian, I would be surprised that they wouldn't be able to empathize with those of other religions and religious beliefs. Hard to imagine that being "Christian" would automatically mean they have blinders on to the needs of others. I realize that there's quite a bit of evidence contrary to that in some of the threads here, but the folks posting here probably don't sit on the Supreme Court.

Imo, "Under God" should be removed. Its a monotheistic and masculine reference that excludes polytheistic and/or feminine goddess worshipping americans. Take atheists (who get little respect in cult happy america anyway) out of the picture and its still a nod to a specific religous tradition that has no place in the official policy of the US. If Christians say this isnt a big deal then we should change the pledge to say, "under gods" and they can just omit the s if they feel uncomfortable. After all, its not a big deal, right?

A more neutral religious alternative might be something like, "under divine authority".

Hmmm . . .

Well, if I had a choice to use money that didn't say "in God we Trust" I probably would.

The addition of "in God We Trust" to our currency also stems from the same fit of McCarthyism that we added the words to the pledge -- I believe the pledge change occurred in 1952 and currency change happened in 1954 but was part of the same divisive movement to separate the "Christian nation" from the "Godless communists".




Your point about boycotting doesn't make sense in this case -- if you don't go to a bar that prohibits smoking, then that bar is out the $20 a week or what ever you used to spend there.

If I switch from paper money to plastic, no one is affected by such a silly protest in the least. There's not some governmental organization keeping track of how many people are rejecting cash because of that phrase.

As a (somewhat) neo-pagan and believer in Native spirituality, I celebrate the Christmas holiday as Winter Solstice -- which is what the holiday was previous to the Christian invasion of Europe (most Christians I used to know believe that Christ was born in the springtime -- most likely April, but changed it to December to more easily blend in with the traditional Pagan holidays).

I still haven't seen any logical reason that we should keep the phrase "God" in the pledge and on cash, or how it would hurt anyone to return to the original pledge.

The addition of the phrase "Under God" was and is an over-reach of the Congress and I would be disappointed should they shy away from this issue based on a custody dispute or taking the easy road of resonating with current popular opinion.

While I think that most times the High Court is activist, they could take this opportunity to redeem themselves and follow the letter of the law and put a constructive check on the Congress, barring Scalia's swing (or whatever one calls it) opinion.

You can't go after the 'God' clause and not end up with the compelled patriotism of the plege itself. The real problem with the pledge is its paradoxical nature. It was established to promote patriotism and what somehow followed was the all too familiar assumed naturalistic 'belief in God' clause. It is like burning the flag. Like any paradox, there is no way to solve it right away, it has to be lived with to some degree.

The Congress seems to think that passing more laws is the answer, because they just can't live with a paradox. Now this cute little conundrum has shifted to the Supreme court to solve. They need to decide what is more important. Time-honored but unchallenged and chaotic lawmaking or restoring their proper role as a check on the Congress and the President. To do this they cannot go to a faith-based argument such as: "If we declare the pledge Unconstitutional, the Congess will respond by passing more laws to protect it"; This is acting out of fear of the judgement of the American People and their ability to keep or reject their representatives (based on their response to that decision) at election time. I just hope the President can see that it is irresponsible and very dangerous to use his podium to threaten the Court into a decision.

The use of this type of irrational faith-based argument would be most disappointing, as I believe that this has proliferated too far precisely because the Congress acted irrationally in initially imposing it. Why it took so long to reach the USSC and why now I don't know, but it is here and it will be an interesting decision.

What if money does come next? No problem in my book. Maybe it will be the Masonic symbolism that will go: So be it. If you buy oil with American dollars with this kind of symbolism on it, it kind of leaves the other side wanting. Like this: "money is just a piece of paper, so what is its real value? It does bring up old (very old) grudges when I look at it, maybe it isn't worth what they think it does. Is that freedom to think like this? I think it is. Wait, what was that? Bombs? Are you now dropping bombs that I will have to avenge in the future? Does money equal bombs? Am I free yet?"

Not many people doing what I am doing either, so the effect might be minimal, but when I tell them that since I no longer pay the tax or pay anything toward the tobacco settlement, AND that as a result, the NON SMOKERS are footing the bill. Yep, that is an impact.

Protesting ain't easy.

Now, tell me, ever pass up a "fiver" laying on the ground?

No, I haven't -- but if its in a public place such as a store I do turn it in.


But your protest gave me an idea, redliner. Maybe I'll add to every bill I get "in Goddess We Trust" -- at the very least it will be food for thought for those that see it.

1. What do you think the Supreme Court will do?

Probably dismiss the case.



2. What do you think the Supreme Court should do?

Probably dismiss the case. It should be recited with or without it, or not recited at all, based on each individual's personal preference. Forcing someone to say it strips it of any meaning, as does forcing anyone to recite it verbatim. They are only words, and I think actions and real thoughts/beliefs are all that really matter. I would rather have someone tell me they don't agree with any sort of pledge and refuse to recite it rather than just go through the motions.

3. Depending on how this case is decided, what happens next?

a: Leave it as it is and there will be uproar from the secular community (and even some religious groups that support the separation of church and state). It will simmer down, and life will go on.

b: Change it and there will be uproar from religious groups, some claims that the atheist and agnostic communities are being endorsed, and it will simmer down and life will go on.

And sadly, offensive to some, as opposed to humorous

Just updating the thread:

Court dismisses pledge suit

Although the Court made the right decision on the technicalities of the case, we should note that only two other justices went with Rehnquist's written argument that the pledge should include "God". In a case without technicalities, that means the Court is likely to have dumped "God" from the pledge (even if Scallia had voted).

I agree. Using his daughter when she was not legally in his custody and she is Catholic herself was just plain wrong. Worst then any politician, he's using his daughter to further an agenda that is pathetic in the first place

Using your daughter for political purposes isn't very pretty, but I still don't understand why they ducked passing a verdict. The issue is just going to resurface.

This seems to be the general sentiment about the case:
"It is a way out for the court," said Douglas Laycock, a law professor at University of Texas at Austin. "It was politically impossible to strike it down, and legally impossible to uphold it."

The supreme court justices have life positions, it's not like they're worried about reelection.