Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Federal Court Hears Pledge, Motto Cases (under God/in God we trust)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
robcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:29 PM
Original message
Federal Court Hears Pledge, Motto Cases (under God/in God we trust)
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 12:29 PM by robcon
Source: Associated Press

Federal Court Hears Pledge, Motto Cases

By KIM CURTIS – 1 day ago

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — An atheist pleaded with a federal appeals court to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency, saying the references disrespect his religious beliefs.

"I want to be treated equally," said Michael Newdow, who argued the cases consecutively to a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday. He added that supporters of the phrases "want to have their religious views espoused by the government."

Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, sued his daughter's school district in 2000 for forcing public school children to recite the pledge, saying it was unconstitutional.

The 9th Circuit ruled in Newdow's favor in 2002, but two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he lacked standing to sue because he didn't have custody of the daughter on whose behalf he brought the case. He immediately filed a second lawsuit on behalf of three unidentified parents and their children in another district.

Read more: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i-OFG98VprcXzcMCPVSB1QNjlCBAD8TB9ABG0



The timing of this sucks. As usual this will be an 'important' issue in the 2008 presidential election, though these words have nothing whatsoever to do with governing the U.S.

The first time the Supreme Court said the plaintiff had no standing, since the custodial parent wanted his daughter to be exposed to the "under God" pledge, while the plaintiff did not.

A perfect wedge issue. Predictions, anyone, as to which candidates will demagogue this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yeah, it's a real bitch
when being right is unpopular.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Flipping it over... It's a bitch
when being wrong is popular.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bicoastal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. Alls I know is that the same people who have a stick up their asses on this issue...
...the same people who think the downfall of "under God" and the rise of "Happy Holidays" means the end of civilization...

...will say, when criticized for calling people "fags" or "towel-heads" or "Maccaca"--"They're just words! How can people feel so threatened and offended by mere WORDS?"

Hypocrites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2beToby Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Perfect! It's too true...
Although I wish it wasn't...*sigh*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokercat999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
4. "Mitt the cult guy" already has, in his speech today he said
"in god we trust" and "god" BELONGS on our money and in the pledge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Massachusetts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
6. Question
How can you trust someone or something you haven't met?

Be careful when you sip the Hemlock...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoccoR5955 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
7. Isn't a shame....
...that our 'freedom of religion' does not include freedom FROM religion?

Huckabee will play this to the nth degree, as will other Republican candidates.

I agree with President Kennedy, when he said that his religion was his PERSONAL business, and should have no part in his running of the government. This stands in line with the Founding Fathers, whose views on religion were mixed as well.

From the Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the Bey and Subjects of Tripoly of Barbary, passed unanimously in the senate in 1797:
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

This proves to me, that the United States is NOT a Christian nation, nor is it a nation of ANY specific religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boricua79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. I didn't know about that
quote...that's great. I'm going to keep it in mind next time I hear someone claim that this is a Christian nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
14thColony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. And the best part
is that because this is a ratified treaty it's US domestic law as well. In effect the Treaty of Tripoli made it US law that our government was not founded on Christian principles. Hard to beat, especially when the sitting President at the time was one of the original founders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duncan Donating Member (498 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
8. Good for him.
I applaud his efforts. It is unfortunate that asshats will use this as a wedge issue, but that certainly does not mean Newdow should have waited until the political season changed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boricua79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
9. NOt this guy again...
Michael...give the shit a rest already.

Yes, I know...the government shouldn't be putting words like God into our governmental pledges. Yes, I get it...seperation of church and state. Yes...we GET IT.

You've had your chance in the Legal system and they decided against you, as did most of the country. It's done. Live with the fact that you live in a religious society, or move out of the country if you can't take it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pop goes the weasel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. they didn't decide against him
SCUSA decided he didn't have standing to sue in the original case, but indicated that they thought the issues involved were worth hearing.

As for your last paragraph, you have a lot to learn about the Constitution. If you like tyranny of the majority so much, there are a host of nations for you to chose from. The US isn't supposed to be one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 02:17 AM
Response to Original message
13. if people were educated about WHO it was that had those phrased added in the first place
they'd be far less likely to support their remaining.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC