COMMUNITY NOTICE: If you are having trouble in your account access, please do send us a message at [email protected] for assistance.

Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional

rickymrickym Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050914/ap_on_re_us/pledge_of_allegiance;_ylt=AoBbw6._HOrNPHFgHy4rDLV7OyAi;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday, a decision that could put the divisive issue on track for another round of Supreme Court arguments.

The case was brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected last year by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

"Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and say, 'We are one nation that denies God exists,'" Newdow said in an interview with AP Radio after the ruling.
"I think that everybody would not be sitting here saying, 'Oh, what harm is that.' They'd be furious. And that's exactly what goes on against atheists. And it shouldn't."

Comments

  • gekokujogekokujo Original Fire PExer
    from rickym's link
    The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

    Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.

    "Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and say, 'We are one nation that denies God exists,'" Newdow said in an interview with AP Radio after the ruling.
    as many here predicted, last year's Supreme Court decision ultimately failed to settle the issue since it was based on a technicality - a cop-out, to put it bluntly. Atty. Newdow may seem to be overselling the seriousness of his cause (classic example of what micketymoc calls "evangelical atheism"?), but because of the high court's indecisiveness, he has a legitimate case. wonder how this round will pan out.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file