One Nation Under God

[Jeff]

It seems the Supremo Court has decided that "under god" in the pledge is OK.
Does anyone remember Paul Krasner's mag that had a poster showing "One Nation Under God" with Jehova buggering Uncle Sam?

[Yahweh]

From CNN - Court dismisses Pledge case:

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.

What does "under God" have anything to do with a "commendable patriotic observance"?

[DaveH]

Why can't they say "one nation under water"? Because it sounds very silly? And "one nation under God" doesn't?

[Loon]

It seems the Supremo Court has decided that "under god" in the pledge is OK.
Does anyone remember Paul Krasner's mag that had a poster showing "One Nation Under God" with Jehova buggering Uncle Sam?

This is not what the majority decided. Though the effect is that the pledge is untouched for now, the Supreme Court (or the majority of the court) found that Newdow did not have the legal status (guardian of his daughter) required to bring the suit.

If I understand correctly, the court esssentially voted 5-3 that Newdow did not have the right to bring the suit. Interestingly, the three justices in the minority indicated that they favored the inclusion of the "Under God" bit.

[Doctor X]

SCOTUS dodged having to make the right decision--recognizing the inclusion is a prayer and an attempt to promote Christian monotheism--to make . . . the right decision. . . .

Huh?

Newdow does not have custody of his daughter. This would set a precedent for non-custodial parents/guardians to "sue on behalf" of children. Bad precedent.

Granted, according to Newdow he "had custody" but lost it for "unjust reasons."

Well . . . anyways . . . this will be back.

--J.D.

[Marian]

Basically what Doctor X said, I agree. They side-stepped the issue, but legally that was correct. (As much as I dislike it).

And it will be back. I think the only reason that this hasn't been harder pressed is that most parents do not wish to subject their children to the inevitible harassment that will take place as a result of such a lawsuit. I personally found this filing, whether intentional or not, to be almost ideal. It allowed the father to take 'the heat', while almost completely publically absolving the daughter, which prevented her from being targetted over the issue. The mother was able to publically state it had nothing to do with the daughter, which spared her from being the target of some nasty, viscious attacks (that were leveled at the father who filed, who as an adult is hopefully better equipped to deal with such, and made the conscious choice to pursue that avenue knowing that would result).

As strongly as many people feel about such issues, it's easy to take on the burden of attack for one's self...it's almost unconscionable to put a child into that position. Especially considering the level of attacks that some people engaged in over their beliefs.

I think that quite frankly, someone exposing their child to that...even though the issue has merit, would need to seriously question why they are doing so. And if it's worth the potential cost.

I know that children have been in the line of fire before on important social issues...such as school integration (Brown v. The Board of Education). But while I find it truly heroic...I don't know that if I had children I would be willing to place them in such a position, even for the greater good. Even for the betterment of their future. And I think that was a much clearer issue than the 'Under God' portion (though I agree that it not only has no place, but should be removed).

[Darat]

...snip...


Granted, according to Newdow he "had custody" but lost it for "unjust reasons."


...snip...--J.D.

You wouldn't expect a court to award custody of a child to a burn-for-eternity-heathen-atheist, would you?

[thaiboxerken]

Yep, but the Bright network is looking for a family to bring up the suit again so that they can't skirt the issue this time.

[Denise]

I don't understand why he is not allowed to continue? Yes, he does not have physical custody but does he not have visitation? Does he not pay child support?

[ceo_esq]

I don't understand why he is not allowed to continue? Yes, he does not have physical custody but does he not have visitation? Does he not pay child support?

The problem is that he does not have ultimate decision-making authority regarding the child, and so is not qualified to assert the child's legal interests in court.

Child support payments are not a quid pro quo - a "fee" a noncustodial parent pays in order to gain a vote in decisions regarding the child. You can have all your parental rights terminated and still be required to pay child support.

[Denise]

I don't understand why he is not allowed to continue? Yes, he does not have physical custody but does he not have visitation? Does he not pay child support?

The problem is that he does not have ultimate decision-making authority regarding the child, and so is not qualified to assert the child's legal interests in court.

Child support payments are not a quid pro quo - a "fee" a noncustodial parent pays in order to gain a vote in decisions regarding the child. You can have all your parental rights terminated and still be required to pay child support.

I see what you're saying but again, I would think that he would have some legal interest in this as his rights have not been terminated. To me, it seems like a slap in the face to non custodial fathers who are involved in their children's lives.

[ceo_esq]

I don't understand why he is not allowed to continue? Yes, he does not have physical custody but does he not have visitation? Does he not pay child support?

The problem is that he does not have ultimate decision-making authority regarding the child, and so is not qualified to assert the child's legal interests in court.

Child support payments are not a quid pro quo - a "fee" a noncustodial parent pays in order to gain a vote in decisions regarding the child. You can have all your parental rights terminated and still be required to pay child support.

I see what you're saying but again, I would think that he would have some legal interest in this as his rights have not been terminated. To me, it seems like a slap in the face to non custodial fathers who are involved in their children's lives.

Well, a lot of noncustodial fathers agree with you - in fact, a group of them submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court. Another way of looking at the situation, though, is this: although this father has not lost all of his rights regarding the child, he has lost the most relevant one (the right to legally represent the child's interests in court). It's a bit circular to focus on the rights he hasn't lost as a reason why he should still be able to exercise one of the rights he has lost.

[Skeeve]

It seems the Supremo Court has decided that "under god" in the pledge is OK.
Does anyone remember Paul Krasner's mag that had a poster showing "One Nation Under God" with Jehova buggering Uncle Sam?

I don't agree, what they did was welch entirely, and avoid the whole issue by ruling on a subsidary issue. I think it's a good thing, really, because there's no possible way that that oath belongs in pledge, and if they were pressed, those whose religious belief required it would find themselves in a very ackward place regarding the law of the land. I'm suspect that the supporters of the oath are hoping for a constitutional amendment, and the detractors waiting for another government before they speak.