Brown
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 12,984
In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled early today that it is constitutionally permissible to include the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and that local school districts may compel students to utter those words, even if the students have parents who are atheists.
The Court's decision was splintered, however, with a majority of the eight Justices unable to agree on a rationale.
A plurality formed by Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor and Kennedy based their opinion on largely historical grounds.
The Court's decision was splintered, however, with a majority of the eight Justices unable to agree on a rationale.
A plurality formed by Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor and Kennedy based their opinion on largely historical grounds.
Another plurality, formed by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer, took an entirely different view, adopting the position urged by the United States Solicitor General.It is beyond dispute that the principal founders of this Nation were religious men. History does not record any founder who denied the existence of the Supreme Being. Furthermore, it is beyond dispute that religious motivations were the primary impetus behind the founding of this Nation. Issues such as taxes, right to trial by jury, mismanagement of colonial affairs and capricious action by the Crown were of secondary importance. The very reason for the existence of the United States is that a group of religious men desired to establish a Nation under God. It would be strange, therefore, to strike from the Pledge those words that so accurately describe the reason for this country’s existence.
…
Newdow protests that, as an atheist who does not believe in a Supreme Being, his beliefs are attacked by the words “under God” in the officially sanctioned Pledge. This protest is without merit. Firstly, Newdow’s belief has no bearing upon God’s existence. God exists whether Newdow believes it or not. Second, Newdow is still at liberty to believe as he wishes, as long as he keeps his views to himself out of respect for the views of the majority of Americans.
In another opinion, Justices Thomas and Souter took a third approach:The use of the words “under God” in the Pledge falls far short of Constitutional infirmity. This Court has often recognized that the name of the Almighty may be invoked in a variety of governmental contexts without creating Constitutional difficulty. It is well recognized that, in such contexts, the name of God is without any religious significance. The words “under God” are included in the Pledge for no function other than ceremonial purposes.
…
The Pledge is not a prayer. It is an expression of patriotism. There is no Constitutional difficulty associated with urging schoolchildren to utter it. Similarly, there would be no Constitutional difficulty associated with educating children about the patriotic duties imposed upon them by the Almighty, as long as such education did not include praying. Moreover, there would be no Constitutional hurdle to requiring students to sing a patriotic anthem such as “God Bless America” before beginning each day’s studies.
Read more here.The First Amendment is unconstitutional.
For the past twenty years, this Court has expanded the role of government as it pertains to religious expression, and has curtailed the rights of the people. The government has been permitted more and more latitude to tell citizens what to believe, how to believe, when to worship, and what to say when worshipping. Instead of pretending that that First Amendment guards religious liberty and forbids the establishment of religion, we should simply strike down the Amendment and be done with it.