A Victory For Equal Rights!

Associated Press
Originally published September 15, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional yesterday, 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 schoolchildren's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Dr. Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of the elementary school-age daughter he sued on behalf of.

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

Newdow hopes that will make it more likely the merits of his case will be addressed by the Supreme Court.

"All it has to do is put the pledge as it was before, and say that we are one nation, indivisible, instead of dividing us on religious basis," Newdow told the Associated Press.

"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.'

"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," he said.

Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the three school districts in Sacramento County where the plaintiffs' children attend.

The order would not extend beyond those districts unless it is affirmed by the 9th Circuit, in which case it could apply to nine Western states, or by the Supreme Court, which would apply to all states.

The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.

"It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made," said attorney Jared Leland.

The decisions by Karlton and the 9th Circuit conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.

A three-judge panel of that circuit ruled that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious affirmation similar to a prayer.

Karlton dismissed claims that the 1954 congressional legislation inserting the words "under God" into the pledge was unconstitutional. If his ruling stands, he reasoned that the children and their parents in the case would not be harmed by the phrase because they would no longer have to recite it at school.

 

This is not important at all. I'm still in highschool and I know no one actually pays attention to it. Its been forced upon us for so long it has become meaningless anyway, although I do believe allegiance to the country is important.

What needs to be done is disallowing Congressional legislation to be based on anything Supernatural.

 

I disagree that it is "not important at all".

I agree with disallowing legislation based on supernaturalism, however.

 

Would you agree the latter is more important than the pledge?

 

Absolutely

 

hmm, are there ANY restrictions now?

 

Elaborate, please.

 

I mean in the debate of Congressional bills, are there limitations on the reasoning used to promotes one's law? I doubt there is, the more i think about it the more i fear ANY sort of limitation

 

What do you mean "limitation on the reasoning", exactly?

 

Libertine

Thank god our children are no longer required to thank god.

But.When will they be required to think...
For this society certainly does not require such.

Occam

 

This ruling is a good banner for all of the right-wing fundamentalists to gather and march under. I assume Monsignor Newdow must be a fundamentalist Christian in order to offer them such a cause to rally around. I can hear the pledges rolling into the 700 Club right now. May a donkey kick him in the balls until the floor becomes to slippery with blood for the donkey to maintain kicking traction.

 

How would christians like it if students were required to pledge every day: "one country not believing in any god" instead of pledging "one country under god"?

Something like that would be just as wrong.

I think this ruling was a fair ruling that equally respects everyone's beliefs.