Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Good news for anyone who's uncomfortable with the insertion of the phrase "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance: U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton has ruled that the phrase is an unconstitutional violation of schoolkids' right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." Michael Newdow filed the case on behalf of families in three California school districts after he was deemed to lack standing to sue on his daughter's behalf.

A "religious rights" group called the Becket Fund plans to appeal the ruling. If the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals doesn't overturn its precedent, the Becket Fund plans to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

9 comments:

Cricket said...

Thanks for posting this. Now if only the ruling would work on the boy scouts.

the nut said...

True that! Peanut, when I picked him up from school today, announced he wanted to be one. I reminded him that 'no' is gonna always be my answer.

The Un-Apologetic Atheist said...

I don't think the ruling can or should apply to the boy scouts. They're welcome to be as stupidly bigoted as they wish, but I do hope more mothers will be like Nut and keep their children away from the psycho bigots who run BSA.

As for the school/pledge case, I do hope to see a reversal of the pledge insertion. I'm exhausted from explaining to people who tell me, "Oh yeah well this is 'one nation under God'!" that the pledge had already NOT said 'under God' for longer than it has said 'under God' since we changed it.

You know, I've never ONCE in all my time saying that to Christians, had one of them answer my question, "Why don't YOU think the pledge should say what it originally said?" Not once.

The Un-Apologetic Atheist said...

Oh, Nut, as to the scouts, there are plenty of excellent, secular alternatives to BSA you could look into if your son wants to participate in "outdoorsy" stuff. If you'd like, I'll happily look into it for you.

the nut said...

Link away! He's bugging the crap out of me but I feel he's too young to make that sort of decision on his own so 'til then, I need to get him going.

Orange said...

Chicago Tribune columnist/blogger/freethinker Eric Zorn worries that the court ruling will lead us toward Congress enshrining "under God" by law. What do you think? Do we need to be worried?

Sass said...

In middle school and high school when we would recite the Pledge, I would remain silent and take my hand off my heart for the words "under god." A few teachers would go apeshit about this, one teacher in particular scolding me after class, telling me that I couldn't "pick and choose which parts to say." I told her that I wouldn't say it at all in her class after that, since I'm Canadian anyway. I think I ended up gettting a D in her class, big surprise.

the nut said...

I explained to Peanut this whole "under god" thing yesterday morning. He promplty replied, "I believe in god." Once I explained that the meaning of the pledge was to align oneself with their country, not with god, and that by inserting god it therefore requested all to believe in only one god....he started to get the idea. He still told me he was going to say it but it's his choice anyway.

I think it was when I attended high school that we didn't have to stand for the pledge if we didn't want to, which I hardly did after that.

And Orange, I think we should always be worried as long as the Repub's have control over both the Senate and House. Remember, they are the one's who tried to "save" Terry Schiavo's life after a bazillion courts said she had the right to die.

kathie said...

These religous fanatics, make me nuts and sad. My sister-in-law is a pastor but is pro-choice, environmentally aware etc...these crazies make me nuts...Wanted to tell you...I linked you on my site, but I kept forgetting the blogspot part of your address and guess what comes up...some religious site...thought that was funny considering your perspective on the world...hehehe.